International Comparisons

of Unemployment

U.S. Department of Labor 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

1978

Bulletin 1979

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
L ib ra ry of C o n g r e ss C a ta lo g in g in P u b lic a tio n D a ta

U n ited S ta te s . Bureau o f Labor S t a t i s t i c s . I n t e r n a t io n a l com parisons o f -unemployment.

(guPPe-tin — Bureau o f Labor S t a t i s t i c s 1979)

A uthor: C onstance S o rre n tin o .

B ib lio g ra p h y : p . p. Unemployed. I . S o rre n tin o , C onstance.

T i t l e . I I I . S e r ie s : U n ited S ta te s . Bureau o f

Labor S t a t i s t i c s . B u lle tin ; 1979-

HD5706.U631+ 1978 331.1*37 77-28957

I I

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
International Comparisons

of Unemployment

U.S. Department ot Labor 

Ray Marshall, Secretary

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Julius Shiskin, Commissioner 

August 1978

Bulletin 1979

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

Stock Number 029-001-02215-8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Preface

In 1961, the President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics

(Gordon Committee) requested that the Bureau of Labor Statistics investigate the international

comparability of unemployment statistics. The resulting study described the definitions and concepts used in seven foreign countries and presented unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts

for 1960. Subsequent to the Gordon Committee study, the Bureau initiated a continuing program

of international labor force comparisons. To date, eight articles on unemployment comparisons have

been published. Comparisons are presently made for eight foreign countries and are done on a quarterly and monthly basis as well as on the annual basis of the original study. The primary purposes of

this bulletin are to bring together all of the Bureau’s work on international unemployment comparisons and to describe in detail the methods of adjusting foreign unemployment rates to U.S. concepts.

Continuing contacts have been maintained with each of the countries covered, and there has

also been correspondence and cooperation with international organizations such as the Statistical

Office of the European Communities, the International Labour Office (ILO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). A preliminary version of chapter 1 and

appendix B of this bulletin was prepared for the OECD in 1975 and was subsequently circulated

to ail member countries of the Organization. In June 1976, the paper was presented by the author,

Constance Sorrentino, to the first meeting of the OECD Working Party on Employment and Unemployment Statistics. Many helpful comments were received from the member countries.

The bulletin was prepared in the Bureau’s Office of Productivity and Technology by Constance Sorrentino under the direction of Arthur Neef and John H. Chandler, Chief, Division of

Foreign Labor Statistics and Trade. Joyanna'Moy assisted in the research, tabulations, and writing

of the bulletin. The data presented were those available as of December 1977.

Material in this publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission. Please credit the Bureau of Labor Statistics and cite the name and number of the publication.

in

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents Page

Introduction. ........................................................ 1

Chapters:

1. The international measurement of unemployment.................................................................................................. 4

Development of international standards. ............................. ..................................................................................4

The U.S. definition ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Sources of unemployment statistics ........................................................................................................................5

Concepts and definitions............... 6

Adjustment to U.S. concepts.......................................................................................................................... .. 11

Limitations.................. . ........................................................................................................................................14

2. Unemployment and employment, 1959-77. .................................................................................... ................................. 16

Unemployment.................... 16

Employment ..................................................... ......................................................................................................22

Country developments............................ 26

3. Unemployment by age and sex.............................. .......................................... ................................................................35

Teenage unemployment.................. 36

Unemployment of older workers.............................................................................................................. ............39

Unemployment by sex ...................................................... ........................................... .............................. ............40

4. Participation rates and employment-population ratio s......................................................... .........................................41

Comparative levels and trends..................................................................... .. .......................................................41

Age structure of participation rates............... .................................. .......................................................... .45

Cyclical trends in participation................................................. 46

5. Factors contributing to differences in unemployment levels........................................................................................... 48

Labor force growth ..................... ........................................................................................................................ . .48

Labor force composition,...................................................................................................................... .................49

Labor migration ................................................... 51

Seasonality. . ................ ............................................................... ........................................................ ....................54

Income maintenance arrangements............................................................................................................................55

Labor market programs............................ 60

Factors affecting youth unemployment .................................................................... .............................. ..............62

Legal and social factors............................................................................................................. ..............................65

Conclusion. ............................................................................ 67

Charts:

1. Unemployment rates, selected years, 1959-76 ................................................................................ 2

2. Unemployment rates, 1959-76 ..................................................................................... 16

3. Annual percent changes in civilian employment, 1960-76 .................................... 23

4. United States: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 .................................. .. . . . 26

5. Canada: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 ............... 27

6. Australia: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1964-76 ......................................................28

7. Japan: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 ............. 29

8. France: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76..........................................................29

9. Germany: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 . ...................................................30

10. Great Britain: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 . ...........................................31

v

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart s- Continue d:

11. Italy: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 .......................................... . ..............32

12. Sweden: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1961-76 ............... 33

13. Youth unemployment rates, 1968 and 1976 .................. 38

14. Ratio of teenage to adult unemployment rates, 1968 and 1976 .................... 39

15. Age structure of labor force participation rates, 1973 ....................... 45

Tables:

1. Official unemployment rates and rates adjusted to U.S.

definitions, 1960 and 1976 ........................................................................................................................................ 1

2. Synopsis of unemployment statistics: Definitions recommended

by the International Labour Office and definitions used in

9 countries................................................................................... ...................... .. ................................................7

3. Labor force, employment, and unemployment, 1959-76................ 17

4. Average unemployment rates, selected periods, 1959-76....................................... 20

5. Highest and lowest unemployment rates, 1959-76 ...................................................................... 20

6. Quarterly unemployment rates, 1970-77 .....................................................................................................................21

7. Employment growth rates, selected periods, 1959-76 .................... .22

8a. Employment by economic sector, selected years, 1960-76................................................................................ 24

8b. Percent distribution of employment by economic sector,

selected years, 1960-76............. .. .................................. ........................................................... ............................25

9. Sweden: Effect of labor market programs on unemployment,

selected years, 1961-76............................................................................................................................ ...............33

10. Unemployment rates by age and sex, 1968,1970, and 1974-76 .......................... 35

11. Ratios of teenage to adult unemployment rates, 1968,1970, and

1974-76.................................. ..................................................................................................................................37

12. Labor force participation rates by sex, 1960-76. ............................................................ .42

13. Employment-population ratios, 1960-76 . .......................... .43

14. Labor force participation rates by age and sex, 1973 ............................ ................................................. . .... .44

15. Growth rates of population, labor force, and employment,

1960-76...................................................................................... ................................................................................49

16. Women and teenagers in the labor force, 1960, 1971,

1975, and 1976. ............. ......................................................................................................................................50

17. Foreign workers in Germany, 1960 and 1965-76 . ....................... 52

18. Estimated number of foreign workers by country of immigration

and emigration, 1975 .................................... ..........................................................................................................53

19. Construction industry: Range of indexes of employment, 1965

and 1975 ............... 54

20. Unemployment insurance systems, mid-1975 ............................................................................................................. 56

21. Unemployment benefits as a percent of average earnings,

manufacturing workers, mid-1975 ................................................................................................... 58

22. Percent of 16- to 19-year-olds in educational institutions,

all levels, 1966-72 ................................................................. 64

Appendixes:

A. International Labour Office definitions.............................................................................. ................................... . .69

B. Sources of data and methods of adjustment: Nine countries........................................... 70

United States.................................................... . .......................................................................................... .. 70

Canada .......................................... 73

Australia......................................................................................*............................*....................... .. .77

Japan .................. 80

France..................................................................................................................................... .86

Contents—Conti nued:

Page

vi

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents—Continued:

Appendixes—Continued:

Germany....................................... ..................................................................................................................

Great Britain.............................................................................................................................................. . 108

Italy.......... ................................... 124

Sweden................................. 137

C. Methods of adjustment by age and sex................................................. • * - ......................................................... 147

D. Adjustment of participation rates and employment-population

ratios................................................................................................................................................................... *53

E. European Community labor force surveys.............................................................................................................154

F. Unemployment rates on a total labor force basis...............................................................................................157

Appendix tables:

B -l. Japan' Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76 ............................................................ .86

B-2. France: Unemployment as recorded by labor force surveys,

1960-76. ................ 93

B-3. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from October surveys

to U.S. concepts, 1960-66. ....................................................................................................................... 94

B-4. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from March surveys to

U.S. concepts, 1963-76. ...................................................................... 95

B-5. France: Adjustment of labor force data from October surveys

to U.S. concepts, 1960-66. ......................................................................................................................... 97

B-6. France: Adjustment of labor force data from March surveys

to U.S. concepts, 1963-76. ............................. ................. ........................................................................ 98

B-7, France: Labor force and unemployment data before and after

adjustment to U.S. concepts, 1959-76.....................................................................................................99

B-8. Germany: Statistics on the registered unemployed, 1959-76 ............................. 100

B-9. Germany: Unemployment according to the Microcensus, 1959-76 ................ 104

B-10. Germany: Adjustment of Microcensus unemployment from early-in-month

to end-of-month estimate, 1959-62.......... .............................. ............................................................ 104

B-l 1. Germany: Adjustment ratios using alternative methods.............................................. ............................105

B-l2. Germany: Estimated annual average Microcensus unemployed

and unemployment rates based on alternative methods. ...................................................................106

B-13. Germany: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76...............................................................107

B-14. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the

1961 census ................................................................. 112

B-l5. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the

1966 census ................................................................. 113

B-l6. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the

1971 General Household Survey. ............................................................................................. ............113

B-l 7. Great Britain: Calculation of the unregistered unemployed,

1959-71.................. 122

B-18. Great Britain: Adjustment of labor force data to U.S. concepts, 1959-76...............................................124

B-19. Italy: Selected results from special labor force surveys,

April 1973 and April 1975 ....................................... ............................................................................. 132

B-20. Italy: Major results of the January 1977 labor force survey.............. .......................................................132

B-21. Italy: Calculation of unreported employment, 1959-76 ............................... 135

B-22. Italy: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76......................................................................136

B-23. Sweden: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1961-76................................................................. 139

C-L Japan: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts,

by age and sex, 1968 ....................................................... ................. ................................... .. 148

C-2. France: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts,

by age and sex, March 1968............. ....................................................................................................... 149

Page

vii

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents—Continued:

Appendix tables-Continued: Page

C-3. Germany: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts,

by age and sex, April 1968 ........................................................................................................... .. 150

C-4. Great Britain: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S.

concepts by age and sex, 1971..............................................................................................................151

C-5. Sweden: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts,

by age and sex, 1968 ............................................................................................................ ................. 152

E -l. Population of the European Community by type of activity,

spring 1973 .......................................................................................... 

F -l. Total labor force (including Armed Forces) and unemployment rates

adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76.................................................................. 

Bibliography.................................................................................................................................................................................... 158

viii

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Introduction

Unemployment, like most phenomena in the social

sciences, can be defined in various ways. No single definition could possibly satisfy all analytical and ideological

interests. For example, Julius Shiskin has identified an

array of seven unemployment rates for the United States,

going from a very narrow to a very broad view.1 The narrowest definition covered only persons unemployed 15

weeks or longer; the broadest included all unemployed persons seeking full-time work and half of those seeking parttime work, half of the total number of persons working

part time for economic reasons, and all discouraged workers.

The current official definition of unemployment in

the United States represents the total number of persons

not working but available for and actively seeking work.

This definition has had widespread support from various

study groups and was recommended by the Committee to

Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics

(Gordon Committee) established by President Kennedy in

1961 ? The definition will be reviewed again by the National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics.3 The Commission has broad responsibility to examine the concepts, methods, and procedures involved in

collecting, analyzing, and presenting the employment data

and to recommend ways to improve the current system.

This bulletin presents adjustments of foreign unemployment rates to the U.S. concept of unemployment. The

U.S. concept was chosen as the basis for comparison because it would furnish comparisons on terms most familiar

to American users. Also, U.S. concepts follow closely the

international standards recommended by the International

Labour Office (ILO).4 Most foreign countries have attempted to follow the ILO definitions, but have made adaptations and interpretations to suit national needs.

The basic labor force and unemployment statistics of

the foreign countries studied, with the exceptions of Australia and Canada, require adjustments to bring them into

closer comparability with U.S. data. Adjustments are made

for all known major definitional differences. The accuracy

of the adjustments depends on the availability of relevant

information; in some instances, it is necessary to make estimates based on incomplete data. Therefore, it is possible to

achieve only approximate comparability among countries.

Nevertheless, the adjusted figures provide a better basis for

international comparisons than the figures regularly published by each country.

The adjustments made to the national data do not

have a very large effect in most cases. Only negligible

changes, or none at all, have been made in the unemployment figures for Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, and

Sweden (table l) 5.In the case of Germany, the adjustment

to U.S. definitions has resulted in a moderate reduction of

the official figures on unemployment. Upward revisions of

the unemployment figures for Great Britain and France

have been substantial, in Britain’s case amounting to over

40 percent in years of low unemployment and about 14

percent in recent years of high unemployment. French figures adjusted to U.S. definitions were 50 percent higher

than the official French figures in the early 1960’s, but the

official and the adjusted figures have moved closer to each

other over the years and, in 1976, were almost identical.

The adjustments to U.S. concepts do not make a

great deal of difference in the ranking of countries according to unemployment rates. The countries at the top and

the bottom of the ranking are usually not affected. However, the rankings in the middle of the array are often

changed after adjustments are made.

The purpose of the original BLS study for the Gordon

Committee was to evaluate the widespread impression that

the high rate of unemployment in the United States, as

compared to most other industrial countries, was largely

due to differences in methods of measurement. The major

conclusion drawn from the Bureau’s study was that differences in collection procedures and definitions were only a

minor factor in accounting for the higher level of unemployJulius Shiskin, “Employment and Unemployment: The Doughnut or the Hole,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1976, pp. 3-10.

2President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Measuring Employment and Unemployment (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962).

3The Commission was established under the Emergency Jobs

Programs Extension Act of 1976, PL 94-444. See John E. Bregger,

“Establishment of a New Employment Statistics Review Commission,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1977, pp. 14-20.

International Labour Office, Eighth International Conference of

Labour Statisticians, Employment and Unemployment Statistics,

Report IV (Geneva, ILO, 1954).

5 Italy made a major revision in survey methods in 1977. The

comparative data shown in this study are based on a preliminary

analysis of the new Italian data. For a discussion of the problems

involved, see appendix B.

1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 1. Unemployment Rates, Selected Years, 1959-76

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Percent

4 5 6

Percent

2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Official unemployment rates and rates adjusted

to U.S. definitions, 1960 and 1976

(P e rc e n t)___________ ________

Country

1960 1976

Official

rate

Adjusted to

U.S.

definitions

Official

rate

Adjusted to

U.S.

definitions

United States . 5.5 5.5 7.7 7.7

Canada . . . . 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.1

Australia . . . U ) 1.6 4.4 4.4

Japan . . . . 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.0

France . . . . 1.3 1.8 4.5 4.6

Germany . . 1.3 1.1 4.6 3.6

Great Britain 1.5 2.2 5.6 26.4

Italy . . . . . 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6

Sweden . . . 3 1.4 31.4 1.6 1.6

1 Not available.

2Preliminary estimate.

31961.

ment in the United States.6 After adjustment of such

differences to U.S. concepts, the rate of unemployment in

this country in 1960 was considerably higher than that for

any of the other seven countries studied except Canada.

Chart 1 shows how the nine countries compared during 3 selected years and on the average for 1959-76. The

1976 unemployment rate was unusually high for the United

States and the year 1969 was one of relatively low U.S.

unemployment. In both years, the United States ranked

near the top in the array of countries.

Chapter 1 of this bulletin presents a discussion of the

international measurement of unemployment and a general

description of the methods used to adjust foreign unemployment rates to U.S. concepts. The description of methods

precedes the presentation of results (chapter 2) in the belief that some knowledge of the procedures involved will

lead to greater understanding of the results. Breakdowns of

the aggregate unemployment rates into their age and sex

components are described in chapter 3. Two other significant labor market indicators—participation rates and employment-population ratios—are analyzed in chapter 4.

Although the unemployment data for foreign countries have been adjusted for statistical comparability, intercountry differences in unemployment rates reflect substantial differences in social attitudes and institutional arrangements, as well as in economic performance. Differences in the demographic and sectoral composition of the

labor force also affect the unemployment rates. Such nondefinitional differences are investigated in chapter 5. Appendix B presents detailed descriptions of each country’s

data and the methods of adjustment to U.S. concepts.

It should be kept in mind that unemployment is

only one measure of underutilization of the labor force.

Underutilization may also take the form of underemployment. The term underemployment is usually used to refer

to persons in the labor force who involuntarily work part

time (“visible” underemployment) or who are underutilized

in terms of some efficiency or income standard (“invisible”

underemployment).7 Because of difficulties in quantifying invisible underemployment, statistical measures are

usually confined to measuring the number of persons working part time for economic reasons. It would be very useful

to develop broader measures of underutilization, but the

most that has been attempted here is to mention other

relevant variables which are available for each country.

Comprehensive and comparable data on labor underutilization have not yet been developed. The Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development is doing some

experimental work in the area of setting up a standardized

system for monitoring all facets of the labor market. However, much more data must become available before such a

system can come into being.

“Comparative Levels of Unemployment in Industrial Countries,” by Robert I. Myers and John H. Chandler, appendix A of

Measuring Employment and Unemployment, President’s Committee

to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1962). This report was also published in a shorter version in the August and September 1962 issues of the Monthly Labor Review.

7

For a detailed description of the concept of underemployment, see Measurement o f Underemployment: Concepts and Methods (Geneva, International Labour Office, 1966).

3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 1. The International Measurement of Unemployment

The earliest unemployment statistics were compiled

by trade unions in order to determine how many of their

members were temporarily unemployed. Although records

of unemployment among their members have generally

been kept by trade unions since their earliest days, it was

only in the early 1900’s that governments began to collect

and publish such statistics. In some countries data were also

gathered from unemployment funds paid out by the government to unemployed persons. At the beginning of World

War I the usefulness of the unemployment statistics published regularly by about a dozen countries was limited,

since the data were neither nationally representative nor

internationally comparable.1

With the development of mass unemployment in the

1930’s, the need for better unemployment statistics became

apparent. At that time, although countries were still publishing unemployment funds data and trade union statistics, the majority of “official” unemployment statistics

were derived from information collected by employment

offices on the registered unemployed. Apart from attempts

in some decennial censuses, there were no direct measurements of the number of jobless persons at the beginning

of the 1930’s.

In the mid-1930’s, in the United States, experiments

with direct surveys of the population occurred for the first

time. The unemployed were then defined as those who

were not working but who were “willing and able to work.”

As this criterion appeared too dependent upon the interpretation and attitudes of the persons being interviewed, a

set of concepts was developed in the late 193Cfs according

to which an individual was classified as unemployed if his

actual activity within a reference period was “not working

and looking for work.” This criterion constitutes the basis

of the modern definition of unemployment.

Development of international standards

In view of the different needs of countries and the

differences in their facilities for producing statistics, it

has never been seriously proposed that all countries should

adopt the same system for measuring unemployment. A

good deal of work has been done, however, toward developing uniform international standards and definitions in employment and unemployment statistics. The major role in

1For further information, see “Statistics of Unemployment

among Workers’ Organizations,” International Labour Review,

January 1921, pp. 115-20.

developing uniform standards has been played by the International Conference of Labour Statisticians, sponsored by

the International Labour Office (ILO).

As early as 1925 the ILO prepared a report on methods of measuring unemployment for the Second International Conference of Labour Statisticians. The Conference

recommended that, where no satisfactory data could be obtained from other sources, “an attempt should be made to

obtain information on the extent of unemployment through

general population censuses or that special inquiries relating

to the whole population or to an adequate sample of the

population be made from time to time.”2

The Sixth International Conference of Labour Statisticians adopted a resolution in 1947 defining unemployment, employment, and the labor force mainly on the basis

of the activity of each individual during a specified period.

This “actual status” concept was a departure from the

“gainfully occupied” concept commonly used by most

countries in the past, according to which the classification

of a person was not related strictly to activity during any

specified time period, but more to a “usual activity.”

The “actual status” approach was first used in a national census in the 1940 Census of the United States. This

approach is now the worldwide standard, with various

modifications.

The Eighth International Conference of Labour Statisticians, meeting in 1954, approved definitions of employment, unemployment, and the labor force which are

now widely acknowledged, though by no means generally

observed.3

In summary, the ILO definitions (given in detail in

appendix A) include as unemployed all persons who, during a specified time period, were without a job, available

for work, and seeking work. Also included are persons who

had made arrangements to start a new job at a later date

and persons on temporary or indefinite layoff without pay.

Persons in these two categories did not have to be seeking

work. The labor force is defined as the sum of the unemployed and the employed. The employed consist of all

persons who, during a specified time period, performed

2 r

The International Standardization o f Labour Statistics (Geneva,

International Labour Office, 1959).

3International Labour Office, Eighth International Conference

of Labour Statisticians, op. cit. See also The International Standardization o f Labour Statistics, Studies and Reports, New Series, No.

53 (Geneva, ILO, 1959).

4

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
some work for pay or profit, including the self-employed.

Unpaid family workers are included if they worked for at

least one-third of the normal working time during the

specified period. Persons with a job but not at work because of illness, industrial dispute, vacation, etc. are regarded as employed. The Armed Forces may be included or

excluded from the labor force.

The ILO concepts are still officially recognized, and

the 12th Conference of Labour Statisticians in 1973 did

not find any need to modify them. However, the definitions leave much room for interpretation. For example, the

definition of unemployment indicates that a person should

be seeking work to be counted as unemployed (unless waiting to begin a new job or on temporary layoff). However,

no mention is made of how actively a person must be seeking work or within what period of time in the past a person

must have tested the job market. The definitions state that

an unemployed person should be available for work, but

they do not require a test of current availability. The

Armed Forces may be either included or excluded from the

labor force. Also, the ILO definitions recommend a lower

age limit for the statistics, but do not specify how that age

limit should be determined. Further, the ILO definitions

do not specify the reference period for the statistics, allowing it to be either 1 day or 1 week.

The theory behind the ILO’s standard definitions is

that countries having different types of statistical systems

can produce unemployment statistics that are reasonably

comparable from country to country. In fact, however,

relatively few countries strictly observe the international

definitions, and, even among those that do, there is room

for some divergence, since the ILO definitions are not altogether rigid on certain points. It is for these reasons that

adjustments in the figures for various countries are necessary if comparisons of unemployment levels are to be made.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has accepted the ILO definitions and

has attempted to promote their use among its 24 member

countries. Building upon the work done by BLS, the OECD

has attempted to estimate unemployment rates on a statistically consistent basis.4 The OECD has made estimates

for Finland, Norway, and Spain as well as the countries

studied by BLS. The OECD figures are based on the total

labor force rather than the civilian labor force. BLS estimates on a total labor force basis are shown in appendix F.

The Statistical Office of the European Communities

has also been working to achieve comparability of employment and unemployment statistics among its nine members.

Labor force surveys using common definitions were conducted in the member countries in October 1960, in the

spring of 1968 through 1971, and thenceforth, every 2

years. A description of these surveys appears in appendix E.

4 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

Economic Outlook, July 1976, pp. 32 and 106-10.

The U.S. definition

The definitions used in the U.S. labor force survey

follow the general outline of the ILO definitions, but are

more specific. The U.S. definitions, described in detail in

appendix B, require unemployed persons to take active jobseeking steps within the 4-week period including the reference week. Only persons on layoff who were waiting to

be called back to their job and persons waiting to start a

new job within 30 days do not have to actively test the job

market to be classified as unemployed. Also, unemployed

persons must be available to begin work immediately, except for temporary illness, and there is a survey question to

test current availability.

The minimum age limit for the U.S. survey is 16, a

point left undecided in the ILO definition. Also left undecided by the ILO was whether labor force status should be

measured on a particular day or throughout a particular

week. The U.S. survey uses a week as its basic reference

period.

U.S. labor force survey data are collected for the'

civilian noninstitutional population only. Persons in the

Armed Forces are excluded from the employment and

labor force totals.

Sources of unemployment statistics

To obtain their official unemployment data, the

countries studied use one of two systems for measuring unemployment: employment office registrations and labor

force sample surveys. Employment office data generally

relate to the number of persons on the register as of one

day during a month. The figures may include persons already employed who are seeking more work or a change of

jobs. The number of job applicants registered depends on

the way the system is organized, the extent to which persons are accustomed to register, and the inducements for

them to do so. Changes in legislation and administrative

regulations can affect the continuity of the registrations

series.

Labor force sample surveys record the labor force

status of a person as of a reference week. Sample surveys

usually yield the most comprehensive statistics on unemployment since they include groups of persons who are not

covered in unemployment statistics obtained by other

methods. New entrants and reentrants into the labor force,

for example, would be enumerated as unemployed in labor

force surveys if they are looking for work, whereas they

may not register as unemployed because they are ineligible

to collect unemployment benefits.

Labor force sample surveys provide a better basis for

international unemployment comparisons than statistics on

registrations at employment offices. Such surveys have been

developed specifically to measure the employment status

and characteristics of the population above a certain age.

They are not dependent upon changes in legislation and

5

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
regulations. Because their central purpose is the same, these

surveys have many features in common, although inevitably

there are special features of the work in each country which

reflect national circumstances and needs. In contrast, the

coverage of registrations statistics varies widely from country

to country. In some countries, for example, married women

may accept the option of not joining the unemployment

insurance system, and, hence, are not able to collect unemployment benefits if they lose their jobs. Other uninsured

groups, such as first-time jobseekers, also have no financial

incentive to register.

Sample surveys often collect a wealth of information

which can be utilized to make adjustments to a common

conceptual framework. Moreover, such surveys are better

equipped than registrations data to solve some of the following problems of measurement:

1. Determination of the reasons why some people

have jobs but are not working (vacation, illness, layoff). 2. Identification of persons currently seeking work to start at a future time (e.g., students looking in early spring for a summer job) who are not really currently available to begin work. 3. Identification of persons who have ceased their jobseeking activities because they have found a job to which they expect to report at a future date, but for which they are immediately available. 4. Identification of “discouraged workers” who do not seek work because they believe that there is no work available.

All the above problems concerning unemployment

measurement are more readily solved through labor force

surveys than through data on placements or unemployment

insurance registrants. In practice, statistics based on registrations, by not including the nonregistered unemployed, have

a downward bias; on the other hand, they tend to generate

inflated figures because of the temporary inclusion of persons who have found work and are actually working and of

people not seriously interested in finding work but who

register for social benefits or to maintain eligibility for a

pension. Persons who are working would be classified as

employed in a labor force sample survey and those not

really “looking for work” would most likely be recorded as

“not in the labor force.”

Of the countries studied here, all currently conduct

labor force sample surveys. Surveys provide the “official”

statistics on the unemployed in Australia, Canada, Italy,

Japan, Sweden, and the United States.5 In France, Germany, and Great Britain, the regularly published unemployment figures refer to the registered unemployed. In

addition, France and Germany have conducted labor force

5 Australia and Italy also give wide distribution to their registered

unemployed statistics since such statistics are available monthly

while the Labor force survey statistics are available only quarterly.

Sweden also uses registration data widely even though monthly

survey data are available.

surveys since the 1950’s, and Great Britain initiated a 

monthly household sample survey in 1971. However, the

registered unemployed series remains the “official” unemployment series in all three countries partly because

registration results are available more frequently and on

a much more timely basis than the survey results.

Concepts and definitions

Definitions of unemployment and the labor force

differ from country to country, even when the same type

of data collection method is used. Appendix B to this study

presents detailed descriptions of the unemployment concepts used in the nine countries. Table 2 provides a synopsis

of the major areas of difference among the countries. For

France, Germany, and Great Britain, two columns are

shown, one covering the “official” employment office

series and the other covering the labor force survey. The

entries in table 2 represent the current status of the statistics. It should be pointed out that changes have been made

over the years in all the countries so that different entries in

some areas would have been required in earlier years. The

following discussion focuses upon the items shown in table

2. Unless otherwise specified, labor force survey data rather

than employment office data are described here for France,

Germany, and Great Britain.

Age limits. The ILO recommends that countries establish a

lower age limit for labor force statistics, but does not specify

what that limit should be or how it should be determined.

The lower age limit in the U.S. survey is 16, and for the

other countries it ranges from 14 to 16. Only Sweden has

an upper age limit as well as a lower one.

Reference period. The ILO definition recommends that the

reference period for labor force statistics be a specified day

or week. In all of the labor force surveys studied here, the

general reference period is a week. Registration statistics,

however, use a reference period of 1 day.

For jobseeking activities by unemployed persons, the

reference period has been expanded beyond 1 week in the

sample surveys of some countries. In the United States,

Canada, and Australia, a person is counted as unemployed

if he sought work within the 4 weeks including the reference week. In Sweden, a 60-day period for jobseeking is

allowed.

In several of the labor force surveys, the allowable

period for jobseeking activities is ambiguous.6 In France,

Germany, Great Britain, and Italy the survey questionnaire

does not clearly specify the jobseeking period. Thus, some

persons may interpret it to be the reference week of the

6Prior to 1967, the U.S. survey questionnaire also did not specify

a time period for jobseeking. It was probably interpreted by some

jobseekers to refer only to the survey week itself.

6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Synopsis of unemployment statistics: Definitions recommended by the International Labour Office

and definitions used in 9 countries

Item ILO definition

United

States Canada Australia Japan France

Source........................................................ Unspecified Labor

force

survey

Labor

force

survey

Labor

force

survey

Labor

force

survey

Employment

office registrations

Labor

force

survey

Frequency .................................................. Unspecified Monthly Monthly Quarterly Monthly Monthly Annual

Age lim its.................................................. Unspecified 16 years

and over

15 years

and over

15 years

and over

15 years

and over

None 15 years

and over

Reference period...................................... 1 day or

1 week

1 week 1 week 1 week 1 week 1 day 1 week

Reference period for jobseeking............ 1 day or

1 week

4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 1 week 1 day Unspecified1

Whether included in labor force:

Career military personnel.................. Unspecified Excluded Excluded Excluded Included — Included

Unpaid family workers working

less than 15 h o u rs ........................ Excluded if

worked less

than onethird of normal working

time

Excluded Included Excluded Included Included

Whether included in unemployed:2

................................ Included Included Included3Persons on layoff Included4 Excluded Excluded Excluded

Persons who have not actively

sought work5 ................................ Excluded, but

no test of

workseeking

Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded,

but no

test of

workseeking

Included Included

Temporarily ill jobseekers.................. Included Included Included Included (6) included Included

Students seeking w ork........................ Unspecified Included Included7 Included Included Excluded Included

Persons waiting to report to

a new job at a later d ate............... Included Included Included Included Excluded Excluded Excluded

Jobseekers not currently available

for w o rk......................................... Excluded,

but no test

of availability

Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded,

but no

test of

availability

Excluded included

Persons who did some work and

also looked for w o rk..................... Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Included8 Included9

Special exclusions.............................. Persons

over 60

years old

and receiving

"income

guarantee" payments;

persons

seeking

part-time

work

Base for unemployment r a t e .................. Unspecified Civilian

labor

force

Civilian

labor

force

Civilian

labor

force

Total

labor

force

None

calculated

Total

labor

force

See footnotes at end of table.

7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Synopsis of unemployment statistics: Definitions recommended by the International Labour Office

and definitions used in 9 countries—Continued

Item Germany Great Britain Italy Sweden

Source...................................... ...................... Employment Labor Employment office Labor Labor Labor

office registrations

force

survey

registrations force

survey

force

survey

force

survey

Frequency ...................................................... Monthly Annual Monthly Annual10 Quarterly Monthly

Age lim its ...................................................... 14 years and over 14 years

and over

16 years and over 16 years

and over

14 years

and over

16 to 74

years

old

Reference p erio d......................................... 1 day 1 week 1 day 1 week 1 week 1 week

Reference period for jobseeking............. 1 day Unspecified1 day Unspecified1 1

Unspecified1

60 days

Whether included in labor force:

Career military personnel................... — Included — Excluded Included Included

Unpaid family workers working

less than 16 h o u rs .......................... — included — Included Included Excluded

Whether included in unemployed:2

Persons on la y o ff................................... Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Included Included

Persons who have not actively

sought work5 ................................... Included Included Included Included Excluded Excluded

Temporarily ill jobseekers................... Excluded Included Excluded Included Included Included

Students seeking w o rk .......................... Included Included Excluded (12) Included Excluded12

Persons waiting to report to

a new job at a later d a te ................ Excluded Excluded Excluded Included Included Included

Jobseekers not currently available

for w o rk ............................................ Excluded Included Excluded Included Excluded,

but no

test of

availability

Included13

Persons who did some work and

also looked for w o rk ................... . Included8 Excluded Included8 Excluded Excluded Excluded

Special exclusions ................................ Construction

workers receiving "bad weather

money” between

November 1 and

March 31

Students age 18

or over registered for vacation employment; severely

disabled persons

Base for unemployment r a t e ................... Wage and salary Total Wage and salary Civilian Total Total

labor force labor

force

labor force labor

force

labor

force

labor

force

* A ltho ugh th e jobseeking period is unspecified, there is a question on jobseeking activities during the 1-month period including

the reference week. 2

For statistics based on employment office registrations, the

term "included” applies only to the unemployed who are registered.

3 Automatically included if on temporary layoff of 26 weeks or

less; must be actively seeking work if on lengthier layoff.

A utom atically included if on temporary layoff of 4 weeks or

less; must be actively seeking work if on lengthier layoff.

5 Except persons on temporary layoff or waiting to start a new

job who are not required to seek work in the countries where they

are classified as unemployed.

6 Included if illness is so minor that the person is currently available for work.

7

F u ll-tim e students seeking fu ll-tim e w o rk during the school

term are excluded.

8

Persons must be without work on the day of the registration

count, but some may have done work earlier or later in the yveek.

yPersons who stated they were seeking work but who also did

some marginal work during the reference week.

10Although the survey is conducted monthly, only annual averages are published.

1 Although the jobseeking period is unspecified, there is a question on jobseeking activities during the reference week.

12Full-time students are included in the unemployed only when

seeking work during school vacations.

13Except students, whose current availability is probed.

8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
survey and others may consider it to be a longer period.

France. Italy, and Great Britain do have supplementary

questions which clearly specify a jobseeking period, but the

responses to these questions do not affect the classification

of a person as unemployed if he has already stated elsewhere

that he is unemployed or “looking for work,”

In Japan, the reference period for jobseeking is clearly specified as the reference week. However, according to

the instructions given on the survey form, which is filled

out by the respondent rather than the enumerator, persons

awaiting the results of previous job applications are to list

themselves as unemployed. This practice, in effect, widens

the allowable jobseeking period to a time in the recent past

which can be longer than the reference week.

Military personnel The ILO definitions relate to both total

labor force and civilian labor force, and no recommendation is made regarding treatment of the Armed Forces.

Among the nine countries studied, draftees or conscripts

are excluded from the labor force definition except in cases

where they are temporarily absent from work because of

military duty. In such cases, these persons are generally included in the employed category—i.e., “with a job but not

at work.” Treatment of career military personnel varies;

they are excluded from the labor force in the United States,

Canada, Australia, and Great Britain, but included in the

other countries.

Unpaid family workers. According to ILO definitions, unpaid family workers are included in the labor force if they

worked for at least one-third of the normal working time

during the reference period. In the United States, Australia,

and Sweden unpaid family workers are included in the

labor force if they worked 15 hours or more in the reference period. In Great Britain all unpaid family workers

were excluded from the household survey until 1976 when

wives working 15 hours or more in their husbands’ businesses were treated as employed whether they were paid or

not. In all the other countries, unpaid family workers are

classified as in the labor force with no lower limit on the

number of hours worked.

In the United States, unpaid family workers who

worked less than 15 hours and looked for other jobs would

be classified as unemployed. In the countries without the

15-hour limit, such persons would not be classified as unemployed (except in France).

Persons on layoff. ILO definitions include persons on

temporary or indefinite layoff without pay in the unemployed count. This is also the practice in the United States,

Canada, Australia, and Sweden. Such persons do not have

to be actively seeking work to be classified as unemployed,

except that after a specified period in Canada (26 weeks)

and Australia (4 weeks) they do have to be talcing steps to

find work.

In Japan and the Western European countries (except Sweden) persons on temporary or indefinite layoff are

classified as employed in labor force surveys. They are regarded as “with a job, but not at work.”7 In these countries,

there is generally no such thing as an unpaid layoff. Persons

on layoff in most European countries and Japan receive

payments from employer funds which are sometimes subsidized by the government. Also, layoffs in Europe and

Japan most frequently take the form of working shorter

hours during the week rather than not working at all.

Such persons would also be classified as employed under

U.S. concepts since they have done some work during the

reference week.

Persons who have not actively sought work. Under ILO and

U.S. definitions, persons should be actively seeking work to

be classified as unemployed unless they are on temporary

layoff or are waiting to start a new job. These latter two

groups do not have to be taking active steps to find work to

be classified as unemployed. However, the ILO makes no

mention of testing a person’s jobseeking activities. In the

U.S. survey, there is a test of jobseeking activities, and persons who have not taken active steps to find work in the

past 4 weeks are not classified as unemployed (with the exceptions noted above). Active jobseeking and a test of such

are also required in the Canadian. Australian, and Swedish

surveys for classification as unemployed. In Japan, inactive

workseekers are by definition excluded from the unemployed, but there is no question on jobseeking activities. In

France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy, inactive jobseekers are included in the unemployed figures derived

from labor force surveys. However, most of these countries

do have supplementary questions on workseeking activities.

The answers to these questions indicate that a certain percentage of persons will respond that they are unemployed

or seeking work although they have not actually taken any

steps to find work,

“Discouraged workers” constitute one group of inactive jobseekers. These are persons who are not looking

for work but would be doing so if they believed work was

available. Such persons were included in the U.S. unemploy ­

ment figures until 1967; however, there was no specific

question on discouraged workers. The fact that a worker

was discouraged had to be volunteered by the respondent.

This left a large area of uncertainty and imprecision in the

definitions, as there was no assurance that discouraged

workers were being uniformly reported by all enumerators.

In 1967, it was decided to exclude discouraged workers

from the unemployed in the United States unless the

person had looked for work within the past 4 weeks. Canadian and Australian statisticians made the same decision 

with regard to the treatment of discouraged workers in

1976. In Sweden, discouraged workers have always been

;Persons on temporary layoff in the United States were also

treated as employed prior to changes in definition adopted in

1957.

9

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
excluded from the unemployed, but information is collected on the number of such persons.

The ILO definitions make no mention of discouraged workers. Since jobseeking activity is mentioned as a

requirement for classification as unemployed, the intent

of the ILO standards appears to be to exclude discouraged

workers from the unemployed.

In the countries which make no mention of discouraged workers in their survey definitions or questionnaires,

the labor force classification of such persons depends upon

the wording of the survey questions and the way that respondents interpret them. When the specified reference

period for jobseeking is longer than 1 week, recently discouraged workers would be included in the unemployed.

For example, a Swedish worker who actively sought work

2 months ago but soon became discouraged and stopped

seeking work would currently be classified as unemployed.

However, next month, if he continues to be discouraged,

he would move into the economically inactive category.

Temporarily ill jobseekers. ILO definitions specify that unemployed persons should be available for work, except for

minor illness. Those countries, such as the United States,

which have a current availability requirement make an exception for persons who are temporarily ill. Thus, such persons are counted in the unemployed. In the labor force surveys of countries without a current availability requirement, temporarily ill jobseekers are also generally counted

as unemployed. In Japan, however, temporarily ill jobseekers are instructed to list themselves as unemployed only

if their illness is so minor that they are currently available

to begin work. Thus, the Japanese practice is more restrictive than the other countries.

Prior to the revisions in the U.S. definitions adopted in

1967, persons who would have been looking for work except for temporary illness were classified as unemployed if

this information was volunteered. There was no specific

question on tills point. In the new definitions adopted in

1967, there was no need to address this point because the

allowable period for jobseeking activities was extended to

4 weeks. Thus, persons too ill to seek work during the reference week were classified as unemployed if they sought

work during the 4-week period including the reference

week. In countries where the reference period for jobseeking is ambiguous and is taken by some respondents

to include only the reference week, temporarily ill persons

who would have been seeking work except for their illness may be excluded from the unemployed. In Great

Britain, however, such persons are included in the unemployed because a specific question is asked: “Would

you have looked for work but for temporary illness or

injury?” Britain is the only country which asks a direct

question on this point.

Students seeking work. The ILO definitions make no mention of special treatment of students. Thus, the intent of

the ILO definitions is probably to treat students as any

other member of the population, regarding them as employed if they worked and unemployed if they were seeking

work and available to begin work.

Most countries, in their labor force surveys, follow

the implied ILO definition with regard to students. Some of

them apply tests of current availability before classifying student workseekers as unemployed. This is a point not immediately apparent from a reading of some survey definitions

and questionnaires. For example, the Swedish survey questionnaire has no test of current availability, yet interviewers

are instructed to probe into the current availability of students. In practice, full-time students are classified as unemployed in Sweden only if seeking work during school vacations. In this attempt to insure current availability, the

Swedish practice may, in effect, result in an undercount of

students looking for and available for part-time work during

the school term. In the British General Household Survey,

all full-time students are classified as not in the labor force,

even if they are working or seeking work.

In Canada, full-time students seeking full-time work

are automatically excluded from the unemployed during

school term on the grounds that they are not currently

available to begin work. Those seeking part-time work are

included in the unemployed if currently available to begin

work.

The pattern of working or seeking work during the

school week, which is widespread in the United States, does

not occur frequently in the Western European countries

and Japan. Thus, the question of how to treat students with

regard to labor force status has not been rigorously investigated in most other countries.

Persons waiting to report to a new job at a later date. According to ILO definitions, persons waiting to report to a

new job at a later date should be classified as unemployed if

not currently employed and if available to begin work immediately. This is the practice followed in the United States8

and several of the other countries. The reasoning behind

this classification is that in many cases the anticipated job

does not materialize, and the waiting period actually represents the beginning of a longer period of unemployment.

In the French survey, persons waiting to start a new

job are classified as employed. The German survey does

not specify the classification of such persons; according to

German statisticians, they are most likely enumerated as

economically inactive. This was also the case in Italy until

January 1977 when the survey was revised; persons waiting

to start a new job are now classified as unemployed.

Jobseekers not currently available for work. ILO definitions

clearly specify that unemployed persons should be currently available to begin work (except for minor illness). Per8

Prior to 1957, persons waiting to report to a new job were classified as employed in the U.S. survey.

10

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
sons not currently available for work (e.g., students seeking

work in April but not able to accept work until the end of

the school term in June) should be classified as economically inactive under ILO concepts. However, the ILO definitions do not recommend a test of current availability, and

most countries do not ask a question in their surveys to ascertain the availability of unemployed persons to begin

work immediately. The United States, Canada, and Australia require current availability for classification as unemployed and incorporate a question on availability in their

survey questionnaires. In principle, Japan and Italy require

current availability, but do not have a specific question on

the point in the survey. The Japanese survey questionnaire

instructions indicate that persons who enumerate themselves

as “looking for work” should be currently available for

work. In Sweden, only the current availability of students

is probed.

Persons who did some work and also looked for work. ILO

definitions state that unemployed persons must be “without a job.” This is also the practice in the U.S. survey where

the categories of employed and unemployed are mutually

exclusive and employment (even 1 hour) takes precedence

over unemployment for classification purposes. In the

French labor force survey, some unemployed persons may

a]so have done some work during the reference week. That

is, they regard their major status as that of an unemployed

person, even though they did work a few hours at some

marginal activity, The labor force surveys conducted in the

other countries do not appear to count persons who did

some work as unemployed. Their work activity takes precedence over their workseeking, and they are classified as

employed, as in the U.S, survey.

Base for the unemployment rate. The ILO definitions do

not recommend whether the unemployment rate should be

calculated on the basis of the total labor force or the civilian labor force. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and

Great Britain, unemployment rates from the labor force survey are calculated on a civilian labor force basis. In the labor

force surveys conducted in Japan, France, Germany, Italy,

and Sweden, the labor force includes career military personnel. For Germany and Great Britain, where registration statistics are the basis for the “official” unemployment rate,

the wage and salary labor force, which excludes selfemployed and unpaid family workers, is used as the basis

for the calculation of the unemployment rate. Career

military personnel are considered as part of the wage and

salary labor force. France does not officially publish an unemployment rate; the official monthly unemployment

figure relates to the number of persons registered as unemploy cd.

Adjustment to U.S. concepts

The noneomparability of national figures on unemployment is attributable to two chief causes: differences in

the system for collecting data and differences in concepts

or definitions. It has been pointed out above that labor

force sample surveys provide data on unemployment which

are far more comparable internationally than statistics on

the registered unemployed. Three of the countries studied,

however, rely on registration statistics for their official unemployment data. Fortunately, France, Germany, and

Great Britain also conduct periodic labor force surveys

which have been indispensable in adjusting and interpreting

the official data.

All of the other countries studied rely on labor force

surveys for their official unemployment rates. However,

definitions of unemployment and labor force differ from

country to country, even when the same type of data collection method is used. It has been seen that definitions

vary with regard to treatment of persons on layoff, unpaid

family workers, military personnel, students, and other

groups. Furthermore, there are differences in reference periods, age limits, and criteria for seeking work.

Adjustments have been made for many, but not all,

of these differences. In some areas, data are simply not

available for adjustment purposes. Where adjustments have

not been made, the remaining differences are believed to be

minor, although the exact extent of these differences cannot be precisely known. In other areas, adjustments were

not made because institutional differences were taken into

account. For example, instead of adjusting the data of all

countries to the U.S. lower age limit of 16, the foreign age

limits have been adapted to conform to the age at which

compulsory schooling normally ends in each country. This

was done because youths in most other countries complete

their education and enter the labor force on a full-time

basis at an earlier age than in the United States, Thus, German data are adjusted to cover 15-year-olds and over; the

regularly published German data relate to 14-year-olds and

over, but compulsory schooling ends at 15.

The methods of adjusting foreign country data to

U.S. concepts are described in detail in appendix B. The

following descriptions present a highly condensed account

of the adjustments made in the various national statistics.

Canada and Australia. Canada and Australia both have labor

force surveys which are closely comparable to the U.S. survey. Although there are some small conceptual differences,

they are not regarded as significant enough to require adjustment.

Japan. The Japanese labor force survey was patterned after

the U.S. survey, but makes use of a number of different

definitions designed to serve Japanese needs, in excluding

workers on layoff from the unemployed, the Japanese are

somewhat more restrictive than the United States, but the

number of workers laid off for a full week is believed to be

very small and no adjustment has been made. The “lifetime

11

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employment system1” is a basic pattern of labor-management relations in Japan. The regular worker is granted permanent tenure, and when the activity of the establishment

is reduced, the employer retains the worker, either transferring him to another job or reducing hours. Workers

placed on shorter hours for economic reasons are compensated for the hours not worked under a system partially financed by the government. In having no test of workseeking activities or current availability, the Japanese survey is

less restrictive than the U.S. survey. However, the instructions given on the survey questionnaire—which is filled in

by the respondent rather than an enumerator—clearly state

that unemployed persons must be actively seeking work.

Adjustments are made to the Japanese labor force to

exclude career military personnel and unpaid family workers who worked less than 15 hours per week. These adjustments are so small that the published and adjusted unemployment rates are identical in most years.

France. The “official” monthly unemployment figures for

France are based on the number of registrations at employment offices. Persons seeking part-time work are excluded

as are other jobseekers who fail to register. On the other

hand, persons who did some work during the week of the

count, but were out of work on the day of the count and registered, are included. No unemployment rate is published.

In addition, since 1974 the French authorities have made

annual estimates of the unemployed under ILO definitions. These annual estimates are. based upon the results

of labor force surveys conducted in March of each year.

Prior to 1974, the annual estimates were based on French

census definitions, which are more restrictive than the ILO

definitions.

For adjustment to U.S. concepts, BLS utilizes the

results of the annual French labor force surveys. The BLS

method of adjusting survey unemployment is quite similar

to the method used by French authorities in adapting the

labor force survey to ILO definitions. The French labor

force survey provides detailed information on the number

and characteristics of those unemployed; by subtracting

those persons excluded under the U.S. definition (e.g.,

persons who classify themselves as unemployed but who

did some work in the reference week; persons not currently

available for work) and adding those who should be included (e.g., persons on layoff; persons waiting to start a new

job), BLS obtains estimates of unemployment in close conformity with U.S. concepts. Some adjustments are made

to the reported labor force figures, such as exclusion of

career military personnel and unpaid family workers who

were not at work or worked less than 15 hours.

Coefficients of adjustment are obtained from the

March surveys, and interpolations are made between surveys to obtain annual average adjustment factors which are

applied to the registered unemployed figures and the French

annual estimates of the labor force. The figures on unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts are considerably higher

than the figures from the registered unemployed series but

quite close to the annual estimates under ILO definitions.

Germany. The principal and official unemployment statistics for Germany are administrative statistics representing the monthly count of unemployed registered at the employment offices. The unemployment rate is calculated on

the basis of the wage and salary labor force. The registration series has certain limitations as a precise measure of unemployment. Some unemployed persons may choose not

to register if they are ineligible to collect jobless benefits.

Also, unemployed persons who do not want to work at

least 20 hours a week are excluded. On the other hand,

some persons who are working a few hours or a few days a

week may be registered as unemployed. The registration

figures cover all persons who at some time in the past have

registered as unemployed and whose job application has

not yet been settled at the time of the count. Consequently,

there may be persons on the register who have found a job

but have failed to report it to the employment service.

Germany also conducts a labor force survey, the

Microcensus, every April or May. The Microcensus also has

its limitations as a measure of unemployment, but provides a better basis for estimating unemployment under

U.S. concepts than the registration series. The Microcensus

was designed to produce labor force and related statistics

consistent with ILO definitions.

In the Micro census the unemployed exclude persons on layoff who are waiting to return to their job and

persons waiting to begin a new job, categories which should

be included under U.S. concepts. Also, the reference period

for jobseeking is ambiguous, and may be interpreted by

some persons to be strictly the survey week. On the other

hand, some inactive workseekers and persons who are not

currently available to begin work may be included in the

Microcensus figures. The Microcensus does not provide data

on any of these groups of persons, but these upward and

downward biases may tend to cancel each other out. The

Microcensus figures have usually been lower than the figures from the registered unemployed series.

The Microcensus unemployment figures, which

usually relate to a week in April, are compared with the registered unemployed figures for the month nearest the survey date. This comparison yields an adjustment factor

which is then interpolated between surveys to obtain annual average factors to apply to the registered unemployed

series.

Germany makes annual estimates of the labor force

which are obtained by adding employment from the Microcensus (adjusted to an annual average) and the registered

unemployed. BLS modifies this annual estimate by excluding from the employed military personnel and unpaid family workers who worked less than 15 hours. Also, the estimated annual Microcensus unemployed rather than the

registered unemployed are added to the employed to obtain

12

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the civilian labor force under U.S. concepts. The unemployment rate derived from the adjusted data is usually lower 

than the official German rate based on the registered series.

Great Britain. The official unemployment statistics for

Great Britain are obtained from a count of registrations at

employment offices (now called “Jobcenters”) and the

separate “career offices” for young people. The unemployment rate is calculated on the basis of the wage and salary

labor force. The completeness of coverage of these statistics depends upon the extent to which persons looking for

work register as such. Figures from the 1961 population

census, the 1966 “sample census,” and General Household

Surveys (available beginning in 1971) indicate that the

registration figures significantly understate unemployment

under U.S. concepts.

The General Household Survey (GHS) indicates that

the number of adult males registered is slightly in excess of

the number to be obtained under U.S. definitions, but the

number of women is very much lower and the number of

youths, male and female, is moderately lower. The registration figures have been adjusted to take the GHS findings

into account, but first the GHS figures themselves required

some revision. No adjustment could be made to exclude

persons not currently available for work. Adjustments

were made to exclude persons who reported themselves as

looking for work but who were taking no active steps to

find a job. Also, the number of persons on temporary layoff the entire week was estimated and added to the unemployed. Persons on temporary layoff are regarded as

employed in the GHS. Further, estimates of students

seeking work were added. All these adjustments had the

effect of raising the number of unemployed from the

official 1,305,000 to 1,610,000 in 1976. The adjusted

figures for 1975 and 1976 were estimated on the basis of

factors derived from the 1972 GHS results. Although GHS

data have been published through 1974, the 1972 factors

have been used for adjustment purposes in recent years because 1972 was a year of relatively high unem ploym ent

compared with 1973-74, and unemployment has been

high in recent years. For the years prior to the first GHS,

comparative estimates have been made by adjusting the

1961 and 1966 census data to U.S. concepts and interpolating between the years until 1971.

In order to convert the adjusted figures to an unemployment rate, it was necessary to develop a revised estimate of the civilian labor force. The chief adjustments to

the official labor force figure consist of adding the unregistered unemployed and subtracting an estimated number of

duplications in the count of the employed. (The number

employed is derived from an establishment census and.

hence, includes multiple jobholders more than once.) The

British unemployment rate adjusted to U.S. concepts is significantly higher than the reported rate—6.4 percent versus

5.6 percent in 1976.

Data for the United Kingdom (Great Britain and

Northern Ireland) could not be prepared because the General Household Survey relates only to Great Britain. Unemployment rates, based on registration statistics, are usually higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. For example, in 1975, Great Britain had a published unemployment rate of 4.1 percent, while Northern Ireland’s rate was

8.1 percent. Since the labor force in Northern Ireland is

small, the rate for the United Kingdom (4.2 percent) was

only slightly higher than the rate for Great Britain.

Italy. In 1963, a quarterly labor force survey replaced the

registration statistics as the official source of unemployment

data in Italy. The results of the quarterly survey form the

basis of the adjustment of Italian data to U.S. concepts.

A major revision in survey methods was made in January 1977. A more probing style of questioning was introduced, resulting in significant increases in the number of

persons enumerated as unemployed. The revised Italian survey represents an important step toward providing the data

necessary for making adjustments to U.S. concepts. For example, the new survey asks a specific question on jobseeking activities, whereas the old survey simply inquired about

a person’s “status” during the reference week. In the old

survey, many persons who were seeking work did not respond that their status was “unemployed.” Furthermore,

a question is now asked on when the last active step to find

work was taken. Persons who have not taken any active

steps to find work in the past 4 weeks should be excluded

from the unemployed under U.S. concepts.

From January 1977 onward, the only adjustment

made to the reported number of unemployed is the exclusion of those who have not taken any active steps to

find work in the past 30 days. Survey results for 1977

indicate that over half of the persons enumerated as unemployed responded that their last attempt to find work

was made more than 30 days ago. BLS is not certain that

all such persons should be excluded. The large number of

persons in this category indicates a massive number of “discouraged workers” in Italy or an interpretation by many

registered unemployed persons that their presence on the

unemployment register does not constitute an active step

to find work in the past 30 days, This adjustment, therefore, may be modified downward when more detailed

results, including cross-classifications from 1977 surveys,

become available.

There are some remaining conceptual differences regarding unemployment for which no adjustments have been

made, For instance, persons on layoff who are waiting to

return to their jobs are counted as employed in Italy. However, legal restraints and the existence of file Wage Supplement Fund pjomote the use of reduced hours rather than

outright layoffs when phut activity declines. Therefore, the

number of persons on layoff for an entire week is probably

nuy small. Also, survey definitions state that unemployed

13

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
persons should be currently available to begin work, but

there is no test of current availability in the survey questionnaire.

The Italian Central Bureau of Statistics (1STAT) does

not plan to make a reconciliation between the old and new

surveys until some time in 1978. BLS has decided to await

the 1ST AT reconciliation rather than make any preliminary

adjustments for the 1959-76 period. Thus, the reported unemployment figures have been used with only a small adjustment to the data for 1959-63 to exclude persons enumerated

as unemployed who also did some work in the reference

week. The differences between the old and new unemployment series tend to cancel each other. The old series excluded jobseekers who did not respond that their status was

unemployed; also excluded were persons waiting to begin

a new job. Such persons are now included in the unemployed.

On the other hand, the old series included as unemployed

those persons who took no active steps to find work in the

past 30 days. The results from the 1977 surveys indicate

that the old series may have overstated unemployment

somewhat because the number of persons who did not recently take active steps to find work is greater than the

number of workseekers who did not initially say they were

unemployed. However, there are no data on the number of

persons in these categories prior to 1977.

Several adjustments were made to the Italian labor

force figures. Career military personnel and unpaid family

workers who worked less than 16 hours in the survey week

were subtracted. The Italian data do not provide a break at

the less-than-15-hour level. The 1977 surveys indicate that

employment was previously undercounted by about 5 percent. Adjustment factors were derived by sex and by economic sector and applied to Italian employment data for the

1959-76 period.

The adjusted unemployment rates for 1959 through

1963 are about two-tenths of a percentage point lower

than the reported rates. For 1964-76 the adjusted

rates are one-tenth of a percentage point lower than

the published rates. Beginning in January 1977, unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts are much lower than

the reported rates because of the adjustment to exclude a

large number of inactive jobseekers.

Sweden. In July 1974, the monthly labor force sample survey was established as the official source for Swedish unemployment figures. At that time the data on employment

office registrations were supplanted by new statistics showing the total volume of employment applications passing

through the employment offices each month. Data are still

published on the number of insured unemployed who are

registered to collect benefits.

The labor force survey results are quite close in concept to the U.S. figures, and only minor adjustments have

been made. No adjustment has been made for full-time students who were seeking work during the school term. Data

on persons not in the labor force who would have liked to

have a job indicate that the number of student workseekers

is very small. Also, no adjustment was made to exclude persons who were not currently available for work. Adjustments were made to the labor force figures to include persons age 75 and over and to exclude career military personnel. These small modifications rarely affect the unemployment rate.

Limitations

The adjustments of national data briefly described

above yield unemployment estimates that are reasonably

comparable from one country to another and that indicate

the level of joblessness according to U.S. definitions. The

accuracy of the adjustments depends upon the availability

of relevant information; in some instances, it is possible to

achieve only approximate statistical comparability among

countries. Nevertheless the adjusted figures provide a better

basis for international comparisons than the figures regularly

published by each country.

There are certain differences for which it was not

possible to make adjustments. For several countries no adjustment could be made for the differences in the amount

of time allowed for jobseeking activities. No information is

available on this point in the other countries, but the effect

is believed to be minor. Prior to U.S. changes in definitions

adopted in 1967, the U.S. time period was vague and was

probably interpreted by some jobseekers, primarily women,

to refer only to the survey week. Special studies indicated

that the effect of the changes in definitions in 1967 resulted in only a small increase in the number of women enumerated as unemployed.9 In addition, for some countries adjustments could not be made for the lack of a test of current availability for work, the lack of an active jobseeking

requirement, and for differences in treatment of persons

on layoff and persons waiting to start a new job.

The data for more recent years for several countries

are much better than the data in earlier years in terms of

statistical comparability. The 1976 revisions made by Canadian and Australian statisticians have brought these surveys

into closer conformity with U.S. definitions and methods.

The inception of the British General Household Survey in

1971 was a major step in making available British data closely

g

See Robert L. Stein, “New Definitions for Employment and Unemployment,” Employment and Earnings, February 1967, pp. 9-13.

On balance, the new definitions yielded a level of unemployment

100,000 lower than the official 1966 annual average. This was because most of the changes in definition were more restrictive—the

requirement of active jobseeking, the test of current availability,

and the change in the definition of persons absent from their jobs

who sought other work.

14

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
comparable to U.S. concepts. The earlier estimates for Britain, based on population censuses in 1961 and 1966, are

subject to a wider margin of error because the census data

were ambiguous on a number of points; for example, the

enumeration of temporarily ill persons. (See appendix

B.) The new questions in the French labor force survey

since 1975 and in the Italian survey since 1977 have allowed for much more precise identification of certain groups

for adjustment purposes. Furthermore, for several countries, data from surveys were published irregularly in the

1960’s, and for some years, no data were available. Interpolations had to be made to fill in the missing data.

For several countries, a problem remains in making

adjustments because the data needed for such adjustments

are not current. For both France and Germany, issuance

of data from surveys lags by a year or more from the reference period. Thus current estimates often must be revised when results of more recent surveys are obtained.

For Great Britain, the latest available General Household

Survey is for 1974. Labor market conditions have deteriorated considerably since that time, and the estimates

based on adjustment factors for years when unemployment levels were quite different are subject to an unknown margin of error.

15

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 2. Unemployment and Employment, 1959-77

Although unemployment in the United States has generally been high in comparison with other countries, Canada; had the highest unemployment rates, on the average, for

the 1959-76 period. These two countries have also experienced the most rapid growth in employment. In contrast,

the Western European countries, with much lower average

levels of unemployment than the United States and Canada,

had very slow growth or declines in employment.

Table 3 presents data for nine countries on the civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment adjusted

to U.S. concepts for the period 1959 to 1976. The following section describes the comparative levels and trends in

unemployment and employment. Separate discussions of

important labor market developments in each country are

then taken up.

Chart 2. Unemployment Rates, 1959-76

Percent

u id

1959 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976

Unemployment

Despite the disrupting influence of worldwide cyclical

movements and the particular economic ills that have

plagued individual countries, the relative positions of the

nine countries with regard to unemployment rates have

shown little change over the years. From 1959 to 1976, unemployment rates in Canada and the United States were

usually much higher than in the seven other countries

studied (chart 2). In 10 of the 18 years, Canada had the

highest unemployment rate in the industrialized world. In

1963 through 1965, and 1974 through 1976, the United

States had the highest rate; in 1966-67 the United States

was tied with another country for the highest rate.

16

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Tabie 3, Labor force, employment, and unemployment, 1959-76

Year

United

States1 Canada Australia1 Japan France Germany

Great

Britain Italy Sweden

Civilian labor force (thousands)

Adjusted to U.S. concepts

1959 ........ 68,369 6,214 0 43,320 19,060 25,850 23,230 21,730 O

1960 ........ 69,628 6,382 <2 > 44,120 19,080 25,990 23,470 21,520 (2)

1 9 6 1 ...................... 70,459 6,491 0

44,610 19,050 26,160 23,720 21,450 3,598

1962 ...................... 70,614 6,584 o 45,040 19,160 26,210 24,070 21,290 3,682

1963 . . . ............. 71,833 6,715 (2> 45,430 19,340 26,290 24,290 20,830 3,753

1964 . ....... 73,091 6,898 4,559 46,040 19,680 26,270 24,420 20,760 3,711

1965 ...................... 74,455 7,105 4,689 46,780 19,750 26,380 24,560 20,430 3,739

1966 ...................... 75,770 7,495 4,833 47,850 20,000 26,290 24,650 20,090 3,794

1967 ........ 77,347 7,748 4,958 48,810 20,100 25,730 24,600 20,220 3,771

1968 ........ 78,737 7,952 5,070 49,680 20,380 25,780 24,460 20,130 3,822

1969 . . . ............. 80,734 8,195 5,213 50,140 20,660 26,030 24,400 19,920 3,836

1970 ....................... 82,715 8,399 5,381 50,730 20,980 26,290 24,270 19,950 3,909

1971 . ................... 84,113 8,644 5,486 51,120 21,210 26,380 24,020 19,870 3,955

1972 ................ . . 86,542 8,920 5,589 51,320 21,430 26,280 24,240 19,610 3,963

1973 ...................... 88,714 9,322 5,723 52,590 21,640 26,360 24,530 19,750 3,971

1974 ....................... 91,011 9,706 5,869 52,440 21,980 26,080 24,510 20,060 4,037

1975 ...................... 92,613 10,060 5,991 52,530 22,040 25,680 *24,820 20,270 4,123

1976 ...................... 94,773 10,308 6,075 53,100 22,190 25,400 25,100 20,490 4,149

As published4

1959 . . . ............. 68,369 6,242 6

44,330 18,925 26,337 23,229 21,286 0

1960 . . . ..... 69,628 6,411

0

45,110 18,951 26,518 23,523 20,972 i2)

1961 ... . .. . . 70,459 6,521 <*> 45,620 18,919 26,772 23,799 20,882 3,592

1962 ................... ... 70,614 6,615 {l ] 46,140 19,050 26,844 24,063 20,629 3,676

1963 .... .. . . 71,833 6,748 (2 ) 46,520 19,398 26,930 24,219 20,137 3,749

1964 . . . . .. . . 73,091 6,933 4,559 47,100 19,638 26,922 24,408 20,026 3,710

1965 ...................... 74,455 7,141 4,689 47,870 19,813 27,019 24,577 19,717 3,738

1966 . . . ..... 75,770 7,495 4,833 48,910 19,964 26,962 24,663 19,396 3,792

1967 .... .. . . 77,347 7,748 4,958 49,830 20,118 26,409 24,540 19,525 3,774

1968 . . . ..... 78,737 7,952 5,070 50,610 20,176 26,291 24,462 19,484 3,822

1969 ................ 80,734 8,195 5,213 50,980 20,434 26,535 24,464 19,266 3,840

19/0 . ....... 82,715 8,399 5,381 51,530 20,750 26,817 24,388 19,302 3,913

1971 ........ 84,113 8,644 5,486 51,860 20,958 26,910 24,154 19,254 3,961

1972 . . . ............. 86,542 8,920 5,589 51,990 21,155 26,901 24,405 19,028 3,969

1973 ...................... 88,714 9,322 5,723 53,260 21,388 26,985 24,676 19,169 3,977

1974 ...................... 91,011 9,706 5,869 53,100 21,715 26,797 24,754 19,458 4,043

1975 ...................... 92,613 10,060 5,991 53,230 21,733 26,397 24,940 19,650 4,129

1976 . ....... 94,773 10,308 6,075 53,780 21,863 26,136 25,135 19,858 4,155

Employment (thousands!

Adjusted to U.S. concepts

1959 ...................... 64,630 5,843 0 42,340 18,680 25,340 22,560 20,650 i\)

1960 ................. . 65,778 5,937 0

43,370 18,730 25,710 22,950 20,710 (2)

1 9 6 1 ................... ... 65,746 6,026 <:> 43,950 18,750 26,000 23,250 20,760 3,546

1962 ...................... 66,702 6,194 0

44,450 18,880 26,060 23,390 20,700 3,628

1963 ...................... 67,762 6,343 (2 ! 44,840 19,080 26,170 23,460 20,340 3,690

1964 ...................... 69,305 6,574 4,496 45,500 19,390 26,170 23,810 20,210 3,654

1965 ...................... 71,088 6,826 4,628 46,210 19,440 26,310 24,030 19,720 3,695

1966 ................... ... 72,895 7,242 4,761 47,200 19,620 26,210 24,090 19,330 3,735

1967 ...................... 74,372 7,451 4,879 48,180 19,700 25,390 23,770 19,540 3,692

1968 . ................... 75,920 7,593 4,992 49,080 19,850 25,410 23,660 19,450 3,737

1969 . . . ..... 77,902 7,832 5,133 49,570 20,170 25,790 23,660 19,260 3,764

1970 . ....... 78,627 7,919 5,306 50,140 20,440 26,090 23,520 19,340 3,850

1 9 7 1 ................ 79,120 8,107 5,398 50,480 20,620 26,170 23,090 19,260 3,854

1972 ............... 81,702 8,383 5,464 50,590 20,820 26,060 23,230 18,920 3,856

1973 . ....... 84,409 8,802. 5,615 51,910 21,060 26,140 23,750 19,080 3,873

1974 ...................... 85,936 9,185 5,736 51,710 21,330 25,630 23,820 19,500 3,957

1975 ................ 84,783 9,363 5,725 51,530 21,100 24,740 *23,650 19,620 4,056

1976 ...................... 87,485 9,572 5,807 52,020 21,170 24,480 23,490 19,760 4,083

See footnotes at end of table.

17

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3. Labor force, employment, and unemployment, 1959-76—Continued

Year

United

States1 Canada Australia1 Japan France Germany

Great

Britain Italy Sweden

Employment (thousands)--Continued

4

As published

1959 ...................... | 64,630 5,870 <*> 43,350 18,671 25,797 22,785 20,169

1960 . . . . . . . .I 65,778 5,965 0 44,360 18,712 26,247 23,177 20,136 (2 )

1 9 6 1 ...................... j 65,746 6,055 <*> 44,980 18,716 26,591 23,487 20,172 3,540

1962 ....................... 66,702 6,225 45,560 18,820 26,690 23,631 20,018 3,622

1963 ...................... 67,762 6,375 (2 ) 45,950 19,126 26,744 23,698 19,663 3,686

1964 ....................... 69,305 6,609 4,496 46,550 19,422 26,753 24,036 19,477 3,653

1965 ............................. j 71,088 6,862 4,628 47,300 19,544 26,887 24,260 19,003 3,694

1966 ....................... 72,895 7,242 4,761 48,270 19,684 26,801 24,332 18,637 3,733

1967 ...................... 74,372 7,451 4,879 49,200 19,753 25,950 24,021 18,846 3,695

1968 ...................... 75,920 7,593 4,992 50,020 19,749 25,968 23,916 18,800 3,737

1969 ........................ 77,902 7 ^ 32 5,133 50,400 20,093 26,356 23,924 18,611 3,768

1970 .............. . .! 78,627 7,919 5,306 50.940 20,394 26,668 23,811 18,693 3,854

1 9 7 1 ...................... 79,120 8,106 5 3 9 8 51,210 20,521 26,725 23,402 18,645 3,860

1972 ...................... 81,702 83 6 3 5.464 51,260 20,663 26,655 23,570 18,331 3,862

1973 ....................... 84,409 8 3 0 2 5,615 52,590 20,938 26,712 24,088 18,500 3,879

1974 ...................... 85,936 9,185 5,736 52 3 70 21,100 26,215 24,169 18,898 3,963

1975 . . . ............. 84,783 9,363 5,725 52,230 20,844 25,322 24,044 18,996 4,062

1976 ...................... 87,485 9,572 5 3 0 7 52,700 20,870 25,076 23,830 19,127 4,089

Unemployment (thousands)

Adjusted to U.S. concepts

1959 ....................... 3,740 371 ( > 980 380 510 670 1,080 o

1960 ................... . 3,852 445 <*> 750 350 280 520 810 (2 )

1 9 6 1 ...................... 4,714 465 660 300 160 470 690 52

1962 ...................... 3,911 390 (t) 590 280 150 680 590 54

1963 ....................... 4,070 372 (2 ) 590 260 120 830 490 63

1964 ...................... 3,786 324 63 540 290 100 610 550 57

1965 ...................... 3,366 279 61 570 310 70 530 710 44

1966 ...................... 2,875 252 72 650 380 70 560 760 59

1967 ................. 2,975 297 79 630 400 340 830 680 79

1968 ................ .... . 2,817 359 78 590 530 370 800 680 85

1969 ....................... 2,832 364 80 570 490 240 740 660 72

1970 ....................... 4,088 480 75 590 540 200 750 610 59

1 9 7 1 ....................... 4,993 538 87 640 590 220 930 610 101

1972 ........ 4,840 557 125 730 610 220 1,010 700 107

1973 ...................... 4,304 520 108 680 580 220 780 670 98

1974 . ................... 5,076 521 133 730 650 450 , 690 560 80

1975 ...................... 7,830 697 266 1,000 930 940 ,1,170 650 67

1976 ...................... 7,288 736 268 1,080 1,020 920 31,610 730 66

As published5

1959 ..............................j 3,740 372

{2 ]

980 254 540 444 1,117 il)

I960 ...................... 3,852 446 f t 750 239 271 346 836 (2 )

1 9 6 1 ...................... 4,714 466 (l) 660 203 181 312 710 52

1962 ...................... 3,911 390 <’ > 590 230 154 432 611 54

1963 ...................... 4,070 374 (2 ) 590 273 186 521 504 63

1964 ................ .... . 3,786 324 63 540 216 169 372 549 57

1965 ....................... 3,366 280 61 570 269 147 317 714 44

1966 . ................... 2,875 252 72 650 280 161 331 759 59

1967 . ................... 2,975 297 79 630 365 459 519 679 79

1968 ....................... 2,817 359 78 590 427 323 546 684 85

1969 ....................... 2,832 364 80 570 340 179 540 655 72

1970 ........ 4,088 480 75 590 356 149 577 609 59

1971 ........ 4,993 538 87 640 446 185 752 609 101

1972 ...................... 4,840 557 125 730 492 246 835 697 107

1973 ....................... 4,304 520 108 680 450 273 588 668 98

1974 ...................... 5,076 521 133 730 615 582 585 560 80

1975 .......................1 7.830 697 266 1,000 889 1,074 936 654 67

1976 ...................... 1 7,288 736 268 1,080 993 1,060 1,305 732 66

See footnotes at end of table.

18

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3. Labor force, employment, and unemployment, 1959-76—Continued

Year

United

States1 Canada Australia1 Japan France Germany

Great

Britain !

Italy

l_____

Sweden

Unemployment rate (percent)

Adjusted to U.S. concepts

1959 ...................... 5.5 6.0 61 2 3'1 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.9 5.0 <’ >

1960 . . . ............. 5.5 7.0 6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.1 2.2 3.8 (2 )

1961 . . ................ 6.7 7.1 63.0 1.5 1.6 .6 2,0 3.2 1.4

1962 ........ 5.5 5.9 62'4 * 1.3 1.5 .6 2.8 2.8 1.5

1963 . . ................ 5.7 5.5 6 2.3 1.3 1.3 .5 3.4 2.4 1.7

1964 ............... 5.2 4.7 1.4 1.2 1.5 .4 2.5 2.6 1.5

1965 ................... .. 4.5 3.9 1.3 1.2 1.6 .3 2.2 3.5 1.2

1966 ................... . 3.8 3.4 1.5 1.4 1.9 .3 2.3 3.8 1.6

1967 ...................... 3.8 3.8 1.6 1.3 2.0 1.3 3.4 3,4 2.1

1968 ...................... 3.6 4.5 1.5 1.2 2.6 1.4 3,3 3.4 2.2

1969 ...................... 3.5 4.4 1.5 1.1 2.4 .9 3.0 3,3 1,9

1970 ...................... 4.9 5.7 1.4 1.2 2.6 .8 3.1 3.1 1 5

1 9 7 1 ...................... 5.9 6.2 1.6 1.3 2,8 .8 3.9 3.1 2.6

1972 . ................... 5.6 6.2 2.2 1.4 2.8 .8 4.2 3.6 2.7

1973 ...................... 4,9 5.6 1.9 1.3 2.7 .8 3.2 3.4 2.5

1974 .... .. . . 5.6 5.4 2.3 1.4 3,0 1.7 2.8 2,8 2.0

1975 ...................... 8.5 6.9 4.4 1.9 4.2 3.7 34.7 3.2 1.6

1976 . .................... 7.7 7.1 4.4 2.0 4.6 3.6 38.4 3.6 1.6

7

As published

1959 . . ................ 5.5 6.0 *2.1 2.2 1.3 2.6 2.0 5.2 (2)

1960 ................... ... 5.5 7.0 6 1*6 7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.5 4,0 (2 )

1 9 6 1 ...................... 6.7 7.2 63.0 1.4 1.1 .8 1.4 3.4 1.4

1962 ................... .. 5.5 5.9 62A 1.3 1.2 .7 1.9 3.0 1.5

1963 ...................... 5.7 5.5 62.3 1.3 1.4 .8 2.3 2.5 1.7

1964 . . . . .. . . 5.2 4.7 1.4 1.1 1.1 .8 1.6 2.7 1.5

1965 . . . . . . . . 4,5 3.9 1.3 1.2 1.4 .7 1.4 3.6 1.2

1966 . . . . . . . . 3.8 3,4 1.5 1.3 1.4 .7 1.4 3.9 1.6

1967 . . . . . . . . 3.8 3.8 1.6 1.3 1.8 2.1 2,2 3.5 2.1

1968 . . . . . . . . 3.6 4.5 1.5 1.2 2,1 1.5 2.4 3.5 2.2

1969 ...................... 3.5 4.4 1.5 1.1 1.7 .9 2.4 3.4 1.9

1970 ...................... 4,9 5.7 1.4 1.1 1.7 .7 2.5 3.2 1.5

1971 .... .. . . 5.9 6,2 1.6 1.2 2.1 .8 3 4 3.2 2.5

1972 ...................... 5.6 6.2 2.2 1.4 2.3 1.1 3.7 3.7 2.7

1973 ...................... 4.9 5.6 1.9 1.3 2.1 1.2 2,6 3.5 2.5

1974 ................... ... 5.6 5.4 2.3 1.4 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.9 2,0

1975 ...................... 8.5 6.9 4.4 1.9 4.1 4.7 4,1 3.3 1.6

1976 ................... ... 7.7 7.1 4.4 2.0 4.5 4.6 5,6 3.7 1.6

1 Published and adjusted data for the United States and Australia

are identical.

2 Not available. 3

Preliminary estimates based on incomplete data.

4 Including military personnel for Japan, Germany, Italy, and

Sweden.

3 For the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Italy, and

Sweden, unemployment as recorded by sample labor force surveys,

for France, annual estimates of unemployment; and for Germany

and Great Britain, the registered unemployed.

The Australian labor force survey was initiated in 1964. Unemployment rates for 1959-1963 are estimates by an Australian

researcher. 7

For France, unemployment as a percent of the civilian labor

force; for Japan, Italy, and Sweden, unemployment as a percent of

the civilian labor force plus career military personnel; for Germany

and Great Britain, registered unemployed (excluding adult students)

as a percent of employed wage and salary workers plus the unemployed. With the exception of France, which does not publish an

unemployment rate, these are the usually published unemployment

rates for each country. Published rates shown for Germany and

Great Britain cannot be computed from data contained in this table.

NOTE: Data for the United States relate to the population

16 years of age and over. Published data for France, Germany, and

Italy relate to the population 14 years of age and over; for Sweden,

to the population aged 16 to 74; and for Canada, Australia, Japan,

and Great Britain, to the population 15 years of age and over.

Beginning in 1973, published data for Great Britain relate to the

population 16 years of age and over. The adjusted statistics have

been adapted, insofar as possible, to the age at which compulsory

schooling ends in each country. Therefore, adjusted statistics for

France relate to the population 16 years cf age and over and for

Germany, to the population 15 years of age and over. The age

limits of adjusted statistics for Canada, Japan, Great Britain, and

Italy coincide with the age limits of the published statistics. Statistics for Sweden remain at the lower age limit of 16, but have been

adjusted to include persons 75 years of age and over.

19

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The Canadian unemployment rate has averaged 5.5

percent since 1959; the IJ.S. unemployment rate, 5.4 percent (table 4). Italian unemployment was between 3 and

4 percent during most years, averaging 3.3 percent for the

entire period. British joblessness also averaged 3.3 percent,

and French unemployment averaged 2.4 percent. Sweden,

Australia, Japan, and Germany all had unemployment rates

averaging around 2 percent or less. Germany had the best

labor market performance, with unemployment averaging

just over 1 percent since 1959.

During the period since 1959, unemployment rates

have been the most stable in Sweden and Japan (table 5).

The difference between the worst and the best unemployment rate was just 1.2 percentage points in Japan and 1.5

percentage points in Sweden. The widest variation occurred

in the United States, where 5 percentage points separated

the highest rate from the lowest. Unemployment rates were

also relatively volatile in Germany, Great Britain, and Canada. In Germany, unemployment rates usually varied within

a narrow range, except for the sharp increases in 1967-68

and 1974-76. The German unemployment rate of 3.7 percent in 1975 was over 12 times the rate prevailing in 1965-

66.

In the 1960’s, unemployment rates in Western Europe and Japan were normally far lower than those in the

United States and Canada. The labor market in most of the

other countries was very tight, as reflected in the unemployment rate lows for the decade in Germany (0.3 percent in

1965-66) and Japan (1.1 percent in 1969). Australia, France,

and Sweden also had unemployment rates under 2 percent

for much of the decade. Achieving “full employment” required little struggle in these countries; indeed, in many

years there was a scarcity of labor. Some European countries had to import large numbers of “guest workers” from

the poorer nations of the Mediterranean region to maintain

the rapid expansion of their economies. Australia encouraged

permanent immigration. While the United States achieved

a 16-year-low unemployment rate of 3.5 percent in 1969, it

was still significantly higiier than the rate in most of the

other countries.

Conditions in the Italian labor market contrasted

with those in the other European countries. Unemployment

was significantly higher in Italy during the 1960’s, and that

country exported hundreds of thousands of workers to the

labor-short countries of the North. However, in the 1970’s,

unemployment rates in the rest of Western Europe moved

ahead of Italy’s.

In the United States and Canada, unemployment in

the second half of the 1960’s was much lower than in the

first half (table 4). U.S. unemployment averaged 5.7 percent

from 1960 to 1964 and 3.8 percent from 1965 to 1969.

Australia and Japan also had somewhat lower jobless rates

in the latter half of the decade. In contrast, most Western

European nations entered a period of recession around

1965, although the impact of the slowdown in growth

generally did not make itself felt on the labor market until late 1966 and early 1967 when jobless rates began rising in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.

Changes in the unemployment picture since 1974

have been striking. Recessionary trends gathered momentum in the industrial countries following the Arab oil embargo in late 1973. During 1975-76, postwar highs in unemployment were reached in the United States, Australia,

France, and Great Britain; German unemployment rates

were the highest since the mid-d 950’s; and Japanese joblessness reached the levels of 1959. In contrast, Swedish

unemployment decreased in 1975 and held steady in

1976.

Not only have most countries registered significant increases in joblessness since 1974, but the relative positions

of some countries with respect to unemployment rates have

changed. Canada and the United States continued to have

the highest unemployment rates, but the increase in the jobless rate got underway earlier and went farther in the United

States (table 6). Consequently, the U.S. rate, which had

been below Canada’s from 1968 through 1973, exceeded

the Canadian rate in late 1974 and remained higher until

Table 4. Average unemployment rates, selected periods,

1959-76

(Percent)

Country 1959-76 1960-64 1965-69 1970-74 1975-76

United States . . 5.4 5.7 3.8 5.4 8.1

Canada . . . . . . 5.5 6.0 4.0 5.8 7.0

Australia............. 2.1 2.1 1.5 1.9 4.4

Japan ................ 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.3 2.0

France ................ 2.4 1.5 2.1 2.8 4.4

Germany . . . . 1.2 .6 .8 1.0 3.7

Great Britain . . 3.3 2.6 2.8 3.4 5.6

Italy . . . . . . . 3.3 3.0 3.5 3.2 3.4

S w e d e n ............. 11.9 11.5 1.8 2.3 1.6

Ratio: highest

to lowest . . . 4.6 10.0 5.0 5.8 5.1

11961 is the earlier year used.

Table 5. Highest and lowest unemployment rates, 1959-76

(Percent)

Country Highest Lowest

Difference

(in

percentage

points)

United States . . 8.5 (1975) 3.5 (1969) 5.0

Canada ................ 7.1 (1961, 1976) 3.4 (1966) 3.7

Australia . . . . . 4.4 (1975, 1976) 1.3 (1965) 3.1

Japan ................ 2.3 (1959) 1.1 (1969) 1.2

France ................ 4.6 (1976) 1.3 (1963) 3.3

Germany . . . . 3.7 (1975) .3 (1965, 1966) 3.4

Great Britain . . 6.4 (1976) 2.0 (1961) 4.4

I t a l y ................... 5.0 (1959) 2.4 (1963) 2.6

Sweden1 . . . . . 2.7 (1972) 1.2 (1965) 1.5

11961 to 1976,

NOTE: Years in parentheses.

20

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 6. Quarterly unemployment rates, 1970 77

Period

United

States Canada Australia Japan France1 Germany1

Great

Britain1 Italy2 Sweden

1970 . . . . . . . 4.9 5.7 1.4 1.2 2.6 0.8 3.1 3.1 1.5

I ...................... 4.2 4.8 1.4 1.1 2.3 .8 3.0 3.0 1.6

II . . . ............. 4.7 5.7 1.4 1.1 2.4 .7 3.1 2.9 1.5

Ill . . . . . . . 5.2 6.1 1.4 1.2 2.5 .7 3.1 3.2 1.5

IV . . . . . . . 5.8 6.1 1.4 1.3 2.8 .7 3.2 2.8 1.5

1971 . . . . . . . 5.9 6.2 1.6 1.3 2.8 .8 3.9 3.1 2.6

I . ................... 5.9 6.2 1.4 1.2 2.8 .8 3,3 3.0 2.2

H . . ................ 5.9 6.3 1.5 1.2 2.8 .9 3,7 3.0 2.4

Ill . . . . . . . 6.0 6.1 1.6 1.3 2.8 .8 4.1 3.0 2.6

I V ................... 6.0 6.2 1.8 1.4 2.8 .9 4.3 3.1 2.9

1972 ................ ... 5.6 6.2 2.2 1.4 2.8 .8 4.2 3.6 2.7

I ...................... 5.8 6.0 2.0 1,4 2.8 .9 4.5 3.4 2,7

II . .................... 5.7 6.1 2.1 1.4 2.8 .9 4.3 3.4 2.7

Ill . . . . . . . 5.6 6.4 2.6 1.4 2.7 1.0 4.1 3.7 2.8

I V ................... 5.3 6.5 2.3 1.4 2.7 .8 3.9 3,6 2.7

1973 ................ . 4.9 5.6 1.9 1.3 2.7 .8 3,2 3.4 2.5

I ...................... 4.9 5.9 2,1 1.3 2.7 .7 3.7 3.6 2.6

I I ...................... 4.9 5.4 1.9 1.4 2.7 .8 3.3 4.0 2.5

m . . . . . . . 4.8 5.4 1.7 1.2 2.7 .8 3.0 3,1 2.5

IV . . . . . . . 4.8 5.5 1.7 1.2 2.7 1.0 2.7 2.9 2.4

1974 . . ............. 5.6 5.4 2.3 1.4 3.0 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.0

I ................... ... 5.0 5.3 1.7 1.3 2.8 1.3 2.7 2.9 2.2

I I ................... . 5.1 5.2 1.8 1.2 2.7 1.5 2.7 2.5 1.9

Ill . . . . . . . 5.6 5.3 2.4 1.4 2.7 1.9 2.8 2.8 2.0

I V ................... 6.6 5.6 3.3 1.7 3.4 2.5 3.1 3.0 1.7

1975 .................... 8.5 6.9 4.4 1.9 4.2 3.7 4.7 3.2 1.6

1 ...................... 8.1 6.7 4,0 1.7 3,8 3.0 3.7 2.9 1,5

11 ....................... 8.8 7,0 4.5 1.8 4.2 3.8 4.2 3,4 1.7

Ill ................... 8.6 7.1 4.6 1.9 4.4 4.1 5.1 3.2 1.6

I V ................... 8.4 7.1 4.6 2.1 4.5 3.9 5,7 3.4 1.7

1976 ................... 7.7 7.1 4.4 2.0 4.6 3,6 6.4 3.6 1.6

I ....................... 7.6 6.9 4.3 2.0 4.5 3.8 6.2 3,3 1.6

I I ...................... 7.4 7.1 4.3 2.1 4.6 3,6 6.5 3.5 1.6

Ill .................... 7.8 13 4.8 2.1 4.6 3.6 6.6 3.8 1.6

I V ................... 7.9 7.4 4.3 1.9 4.5 3.5 6,6 3.7 1.6

1977 ...................

I ...................... 7.4 7.8 4.6 1.9 4.7 3.4 6.8 3.2 1.7

II ....................... 7.0 8.1 5.4 2.1 5.3 3.5 7.0 3.1 1.7

Ill ................... 7.0 8.2 5.7 2.1 5.8 3,6 7.2 3.6 2.0

Preliminary for France and Germany for 1977, and for Great

Britain from 1975 onward.

Data for 1977 are not strictly comparable with data for earlier

years. (See appendix B.)

NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, Italy, and

Great Britain are calculated by applying annual adjustment factors

to current published data, and therefore should be viewed as only

approximate indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts.

Published data for Australia, Canada, Japan, and Sweden require

little or no adjustment.

21

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1977. Increases in unemployment were even more pronounced in other countries; sharp increases in Australian

and German unemployment caused those countries to move

up in ranking. At the same time, since unemployment declined in Sweden, that country displaced Germany as the

country with the lowest unemployment rate. Italy, which

had ranked no lower than fourth throughout 1959-74,

moved down to sixth position in 1975-76.

The increases in unemployment in the 1970’s have

been attributed to structural change as well as cyclical factors. Even before the Arab oil embargo, a number of countries had high rates of unemployment in relation to previous

experience. In all but three countries (Japan, Italy, and

Germany), unemployment rates in the early 1970’s were

significantly higher than in the latter half of the 1960’s. According to calculations by the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD), unemployment

rates at the end of 1972 in the United States, Canada,

France, and Great Britain were about 1 percentage point

above the rate prevailing at a similar stage of the previous

business cycle.1 The OECD has noted a tendency for unemployment levels in major industrial countries to increase from cyclical peak to cyclical peak since the end

of World War II.

In Canada and the United States, the faster growth of

the labor supply in the 1970’s has been an element behind

the rise of unemployment. In both countries, high birth

rates after 1945 and social factors—higher female participation rates and the slowdown in the spread of higher education -have led to a pronounced acceleration of labor

force growth. In most of Western Europe, birth rates, following the early postwar baby boom, fell back in the early

1950’s. Female labor force participation has declined or increased slowly in the European countries (chapter 4),

and higher education has not yet reached as large a propor1 ion of ihe population as in the United States. In Western

Europe, unlike the United States, the spread of higher eduTable 7. Employment growth rates, selected periods, 1959-76

(Percent per year)

Country 1959-76' j 1960-6521965-70 1970-741974-75 1975-76

United States

i

1.9 | 1.5 2.1 2.5 -1.3 3.2

Canada . . . . 3.1 ! 2.8 2.9 3.9 1.9 2.2

Australia . . . 2.2 (3 ) 2.7 2.0 - .2 1.4

Japan ..... 1.3 1.2 1.7 .9 - .3 1.0

France . . . . j .9 .9 1.0 1.1 -1.0 .3

Germany . . . | • -1 .4 - .3 - .4 -3.5 -1.1

Great Britain. ! -1 .9 - .5 .5 - .7 - .7

I t a l y ............. \ - .5 4.0 - .3 .1 .6 .7

Sweden. . . . 1 .8 I .9 .7 .6 2.5 .7

11984-78 for Australia; 1961-76 for Sweden.

2 1961-65 for Sweden.

Not available.

NOTE: Percent changes computed from the least squares trend

of the logarithms of the index numbers.

cation has brought about a decline in the labor force participation rate of teenagers.

Supply-demand imbalances have consituted an important source of difficulty in labor markets in the 1970 s. Illustrating this is the fact that several European countries experienced simultaneous increases in the number of job vacancies and the number of persons unemployed, reflecting

growing supply-demand disequilibrium at the occupational,

industrial, or regional level. Existing statistics do not generally allow a comprehensive analysis of these imbalances,

but such fragmentary evidence as is available suggests that

imbalances are increasing in a number of countries.2

Employment

Canada had. by far, the highest rate of employment

growth during the period 1959 to 1976 (table 7). Employment rose at a rate of over 3 percent a year, and in 1976

there were about 3.7 million (64 percent) more persons employed in Canada than there were in 1959. Canada was the

only country studied which experienced continuous employment expansion throughout the period (chart 3).

Employment growth in the United States and Australia was also strong. In the United States, annual employment increases averaged 1.9 percent, and almost 23 million

(35 percent) more persons held jobs in 1976 than in 1959.

The United States experienced only 2 years of declining

employment, a slight decrease during the 1960-61 recession,

and a more dramatic drop in the 1974-75 economic downturn. Japan was the only other country with employment

growth of over 1 percent a year, and 1974 and 1975 were

the only years of declining employment there.

in the Western European countries, in contrast, employment has grown slowly or actually declined since 1959.

In France and Sweden, employment grew by about 0.8 percent a year; in Great Britain, the growth rate was negligible.

Germany and Italy had declining employment trends, in

Germany, there were 860,000 fewer persons employed in

1976 than there were in 1959.

In the United States, Canada, Japan, and France, employment growth accelerated in the second half of the

I960’s. In Canada, employment growth was particularly

rapid in 1965-68 (3.5 percent annually), hut it then fell off

to 2.1 percent per year from 1968 to 1970. In the United

States and Canada, the acceleration which began around

the mid-1960’s was attributed to rapid economic growth

combined with a large increase in young persons and women coming onto the labor market and finding jobs. In Germany and Great Britain, employment began to decline in

the latter half of the 1960’s after rising in the first half of

1 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

Economic Outlook, December 19 73, pp. 32-33.

2 Ibid.

Digitized for FRASER 

22

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the decade. Swedish employment growth also tapered off.

Italian employment continued to decline, but at a reduced

rate.

In the early 1970’s, the rate of employment growth

accelerated again in the United States and Canada. Canadian

employment growth continued to outpace the other countries. Employment growth was regained in Great Britain,

and Italy’s employment began to increase after many years

of decline.

The recessionary period of 1974-75 had a strong impact on employment, which fell in six of the nine countries studied. The sharpest decline—3.5 percent-was recorded in Germany. Only Canada, Italy, and Sweden maintained employment growth in 1975. The rise in Italian employment continued into the recessionary period. Even

with these recent increases, 1 million fewer Italians were at

work in 1976 than in 1961, the peak year for employment

in Italy.

In 1976, employment continued to fall in Germany

and Great Britain, but rebounded in the United States,

Australia, France, and Japan. Canada’s employment growth

slowed somewhat in 1976, and the United States had the

most rapid increase.

Sectoral employment. Generally, with a nation’s economic development and its progress in industrialization,

the distribution of the employed population shifts from

agricultural to industrial activities, particularly manufacturing, and then from these sectors to service activities.3

Tables 8a and 8b present comparative data on civilian employment by sector in nine countries for selected years of

the 1960 to 1976 period. During that time, vast long-term

sectoral reallocations of employment continued to take

place in Japan, France, and Italy, with more moderate

shifts occurring in the other countries.

Sectoral employment is significant to the discussion of unemployment because certain sectors are more

prone to unemployment than others. Also, sectoral shifts

can create unemployment by displacing workers in declining sectors. Chapter 5 goes into these factors in more detail.

3

For a more detailed account of sectoral trends since 1950, see

Constance Sorrentino, “Comparing Employment Shifts in 10 Industrialized Countries,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1971,

pp. 3-11.

Chart 3. Annual Percent Changes in Civilian Employment, 1960-76

Canada

United States

Sweden Great Britain

3

2 

1 

0

-1 

-2

France

Germany

4

3

2

1

Australia

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

3

2

1

0

-1 

1960

Japan

1964 1968 1972 1976

Note: Data for Australia not available before 1965; for Sweden, before 1962.

23

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(Thousands)

Table 8A. Employment by economic sector, selected years, 1960-76

Year

United

States Canada Australia Japan France Germany

Great

Britain1 Italy2 Sweden

Total civilian employment

1960 ................... 65,778 5,965 NA 43,370 18,712 25,954 24,257 19,877 3,513

1965 ................... 71,088 6,862 4,614 46,200 19,544 26,418 25,327 18,721 3,673

1970 ................... 78,627 7,919 5,326 50,140 20,393 26,169 24,748 18,460 3,836

1 9 7 1 ................... 79,120 8,107 5,422 50,470 20,511 26,225 24,376 18,376 3,842

1972 ....... 81,702 8,363 5,490 50,580 20,663 26,125 24,376 18,075 3,845

19733 ................ 84,409 8,802 5,615 51,900 20,938 26,201 24,948 18,239 3,861

1974 ....... 85,936 9,185 5,736 51,710 21,100 25,688 25,063 18,644 3,944

1975 . . ............. 84,783 9,363 5,726 51,530 20,844 24,798 24,979 18,765 4,044

1976 ................... 87,485 9,572 5,808 52,020 20,870 24,544 NA 18,900 4,070

4

Agriculture

1960 ................... 5,572 795 NA 12,800 4,189 3,526 1,005 6,470 544

1965 ................ . 4,477 694 448 10,500 3,468 2,876 846 4,826 421

1970 ....... 3,566 605 431 8,490 2,907 2,262 699 3,574 314

1 9 7 1 ................... 3,503 608 423 7,840 2,791 2,144 674 3,530 300

1972 ................... 3,585 576 429 7,310 2,673 2,038 671 3,255 287

19733 ................ 3,554 574 401 6,810 2,559 1,954 681 3,141 276

1974 ................ . 3,588 583 392 6,540 2,452 1,882 662 3,072 264

1975 ................... 3,476 579 385 6,380 2,355 1,823 646 2,934 261

1976 ................... 3,417 566 374 6,210 2,266 1,714 NA 2,902 254

Industry5

1960 ................... 21,995 1,906 NA 12,380 7,136 12,400 11,466 7,267 1,420

1965 ....... 24,311 2,233 1,653 15,010 7,538 12,761 11,755 7,650 1,553

1970 ................... 26,066 2,359 1,843 17,880 7,900 12,452 11,114 8 ,1 1 2 1,456

1971 . . ............. 25,117 2,383 1,880 18,140 7,928 12,384 10,728 8,150 1,424

1972 ................... 25,709 2,446 1,855 18,290 7,959 12,214 10,470 8,030 1,396

19733 . ............. 27,086 2,602 1,890 19,210 8,070 12,225 10,592 8,047 1,401

1974 ....... 26,988 2,710 1,916 19,020 8,093 11,932 10,566 8,251 1,434

1975 ................... 25,022 2,629 *1,834 18,370 7,850 *11,170 10,170 8,300 1,449

1976 ................... 25,976 2,733 *1,826 18,520 7,776 *10,837 NA 8,225 1,416

Manufacturing

1960 ................... 17,149 1,471 NA 9,430 5,240 9,872 9,098 5,344 1,120

1965 ....... 19,190 1,636 1,207 11,450 5,405 10,105 9,254 5,427 1,206

1970 ................... 20,737 1,768 1,308 13,750 5,570 9,796 9,022 5,864 1,064

1971 . . ............. 19,564 1,767 1,336 13,420 5,733 9,711 8,724 5,910 1,054

1972 . ................ 19,866 1,828 1,310 13,810 5,782 9,550 8,446 5,826 1,046

19733 ................ 20,942 1,937 1,335 14,420 5,892 9,541 8,498 5,894 1,066

1974 ................... 20,879 1,994 1,340 13,250 5,938 9,410 8,540 6,100 1 ,1 2 0

1975 ................... 19,275 1,890 *1,251 13,430 5,789 *8.890 8,157 6,128 1,138

1976 ................... 20,044 1,945 *1,255 13,440 5,735 *8,625 NA 6,143 1,100

Services6

1960 ................... 38,212 3,264 NA 18,190 7,387 10,028 11,786 6,141 1,550

1965 .................... 42,301 3,934 2,514 20,690 8,538 10,781 12,726 6,244 1,699

1970 ................... 48,994 4,955 3,052 23,770 9,586 11,455 12,935 6,772 2,066

1 9 7 1 ................... 50,500 5,116 3,119 24,510 9,791 11,697 12,975 6,695 2,118

1972 ................... 52,408 5,341 3,206 24,980 10,031 11,873 13,236 6,790 2,162

19733 ................ 53,770 5,626 3,325 25,880 10,309 12,022 13,676 7,049 2,185

1974 ....... 55,360 5,892 3,427 26,140 10,555 11,894 13,836 7,321 2,246

1975 ................... 56,285 6,155 *3,506 26,770 10,639 *11,805 14,163 7,531 2,334

1976 ................... 58,092 6,273 *3,608 27,290 10,828 *11,993 NA 7,773 2,400

includes Northern Ireland.

2 Data for Italy have not been adjusted for the undercount

of employment which was revealed by the revised Italian labor force

survey (see appendix B).

rrom 1973 onwards, Japan includes Okinawa.

4 Agriculture, forestry, hunting, and fishing.

5 Manufacturing, mining, and construction,

transportation, communication, public utilities, trade, finance,

public administration, private household services, and miscellaneous

services.

NA = Not available.

* = Preliminary.

NOTE: Civilian employment totals may not coincide with those

in table 3 because some employment could not be distributed by

economic sector.

24

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 8B. Percent distribution of employment by economic sector, selected years, 1960-76

Year

United

States Canada Australia Japan France Germany

Great

Britain1 Italy2 Sweden

Total civilian employment

Each Year ............. 100.0 100.0 100.G 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

3

Agriculture

1960 ................... 8.5 13.3 NA 29.5 22.4 13.6 4.1 32.6 15.5

1965 ................... '• 6.3 10.1 9.7 22.7 17.7 10.9 3.3 25.8 11.5

1970 ................... 4.5 7.6 8.1 16.9 14.2 8.6 2.8 19.4 8.2

1971 ....... 4.4 7.5 7.8 15.5 13.6 8.2 2.8 19.2 7.8

1972 ................... 4.4 6.9 7.8 14.4 12.9 7.8 2.8 18.0 7.5

19'734 ................ 4.2 6.5 7.1 13.1 12.2 7.5 2.7 17.1 7.1

1974 ....... 4.2 6.3 6.8 12.6 11.6 7.3 2.6 16.5 6.7

1975 ................... 4.1 6.2 6,7 12.4 11.3 7.4 2.6 15.6 6.5

1976 . . . . . . . 3.9 5.9 6.2 11.9 10.9 7.0 NA 15.4 6.2

Industry5

1960 ....... 33.4 32.0 NA 28.5 38.1 47.8 47.3 36.6 40.4

1965 ....... 34.2 32.5 35.8 32.5 38.6 48.3 46.4 40.9 42.3

1970 ................... 33.2 29.8 34.6 35,7 38.7 47,6 44.9 43.9 38.0

1 9 7 1 ................... 31.9 29.4 34.7 35.9 38.6 47.2 44.0 44.4 37.1

1972 ................... 31.5 29.4 33.8 36.2 38.5 46,8 43.0 44.4 36.3

19734 ................ 32.1 29.6 33.7 37.0 38.5 46.7 42.5 44.4 36.3

1974 ................... 31.4 29.5 33.4 36.8 38.4 46.4 42.2 44.3 36.4

1975 ................... 29.5 28.1 *32.0 35.6 37.7 *45.0 40.7 44.2 35,8

1976 ................... 29.7 28.6 *31.4 35.6 37.3 *44.2 NA 43.5 34.8

Manufacturing

1960 ................... 26.1 24.7 NA 21.7 28.0 38.0 37.5 26.9 31.9

1965 ................... 27.0 23.8 26.2 24.8 27.7 38.2 36.5 29.0 32.8

1970 ................... 26.4 22.3 24.6 27.4 27.3 37.4 36.5 31.8 27.7

1971 ....... 24.7 21.8 24.6 26.6 28.0 37.0 35.8 32.2 27.4

1972 ................... 24.3 21.9 23.9 27.3 28.0 36.6 34.6 32.2 27.2

19734 ...... 24.8 22.0 23.8 27.8 28.1 36.4 34.1 32.3 27.6

1974 . ................ 24.3 21.7 23.4 25.6 28.1 36.6 34.1 32.7 28.4

1975 ................... 22.7 20.2 * 21.8 26.1 27.8 *35.8 32.7 32.7 28.1

1976 ....... 22.9 20.3 * 21.6 25.8 27.5 *35.1 NA 32.5 27.0

Services6

1960 ................... 58.1 54.7 NA 41.9 39.5 38.6 48.6 30.9 44.1

1965 ................... 59.5 57.3 54.5 44.8 43.7 40.8 50.2 33.4 46.3

1970 ................... 62.3 62.6 57.3 47,4 47.0 43.8 52.3 36.7 53.9

1 9 7 1 ................... 63.8 63.1 57.5 48.6 47.7 44.6 53.2 36.4 55.1

1972 ....... 64.1 63.9 58.4 49.4 48.5 45.4 54.3 37.6 56.2

19734 . ............. 63.7 63.9 59.2 49.9 49.2 45.9 54.8 38.6 56.6

1974 ................... 64.4 64.1 59.7 50.6 50,0 46.3 55.2 39.3 56.9

1975 ................... 66.4 65.7 *61.2 52.0 51.0 *47.6 56.7 40.1 57.7

1976 ................... 66.4 65.5 *62.1 52.5 51.9 *48.9 NA 41.1 59.0

1 Includes Northern Ireland.

z Data for Italy have not been adjusted for the undercount of

employment which was revealed by the revised Italian labor force

survey (see appendix B).

^Agriculture, forestry, hunting, and fishing.

From 1973 onwards, Japan includes Okinawa.

^Manufacturing, mining, and construction.

^Transportation, communication, public utilities, trade, finance,

public administration, private household services, and miscellaneous

services.

NA ~ Not available.

* - Preliminary.

25

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Employment in agriculture declined in all countries,

usually quite rapidly. In conjunction with the growth of

total employment in most countries, this resulted in a significant fall in agriculture’s share of employment. Great

Britain had the lowest proportion of employment in agriculture, and the United States ranked second. Large differences among countries in the proportion of employment

in agriculture have narrowed considerably since 1960. In

1960 the agricultural sector in Japan was larger, in terms

of employment, than the industrial sector. By 1965, the

industrial sector was larger. In most countries, the rate of

decline in agricultural employment accelerated in the

1960’s over the 1950’s.

Movement out of agriculture generally increases the

labor supply available for industry and services. However,

rural to urban migration in Italy and Japan actually tended

to curb the total labor supply. Many women and children

who formerly worked as unpaid farm laborers withdrew

from the labor force entirely when their families left agriculture. Thus, the female participation rate declined in

both countries. (See chapter 4.) In most other countries,

this effect was outweighed by the increasing number of

married women entering the labor force when their children

reached school age.

Employment in the industrial sector—mining, manufacturing, and construction—rose in all countries except

Germany, Great Britain, and Sweden. However, the increases in the United States, Canada, Australia, and France

did not keep pace with overall employment expansion; consequently, the proportion in industry actually declined.

Japan and Italy were the only countries in which the industrial sector increased its share of total employment.

In the recessionary period of 1974-75, Italy and

Sweden were the only countries with employment increases

in the industrial sector. In Canada, overall employment

rose, but industrial employment declined.

The United States emerged as the world’s first service

economy—over 50 percent of employment in service industries—shortly after World War II. With some lag, the other

industrial nations appear to be following that pattern. Canada crossed the 50-percent level in 1958, and Australia and

Great Britain joined the United States and Canada in the

1960’s. In the first half of the 1970’s, Japan and France

also became service economies. Only Germany and Italy

continue to have more workers engaged in the production

of goods than of services.

Country developments

Unemployment rates are useful indicators of labor

utilization and of economic health. These statistics become

even more meaningful when used in conjunction with other

labor market data. Hours of work, for example, are commonly reduced in economic downturns as an alternative to

laying off workers. Some countries, particularly France and

Germany, employ large migrant work forces whose numbers can be increased or decreased in conformity with demand. Some workers withdraw from the labor force in bad

times, in discouragement over the prospects of obtaining

a job. Sweden has a highly developed system which provides training and employment to persons unable to find

jobs. These factors and others are considered in the following brief country-by-country analyses of unemployment

trends. Charts 4 through 12 show the trends in workmg

age population, labor force, and employment for each of

the countries.

United States. Following post-World War II highs of 6.8

percent in 1958 and 6.7 percent in 1961 Joblessness in the

United States moved downward slowly to a 16-year low of

3.5 percent in 1969. In 1970 unemployment increased

sharply to 4.9 percent, and in 1971 it rose further to 5.9

percent. The low point since that time was 4.7 percent in

October 1973. In late 1974 and 1975, the United States

Chart 4. United States: Working-Age

Population, Labor Force, and

Employment, 1960-76

Millions

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

26

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
suffered from its worst economic downturn since the depression of the 1930’s. The average 1975 unemployment

rate of 8.5 percent was the highest recorded since 1941. In

1976, unemployment still averaged 7.7 percent of the civilian labor force. In May 1977, the rate fell below 7 percent

for the first time in 2xh years.

The rate of growth of the U.S. labor force has been

much higher than that for Europe and Japan. From 1960

to 1976, the labor force grew at an annual rate of 2.0 percent. Since 1969 the rate of growth has been at least 2.5

percent a year except in the recession years of 1971 and

1975. Despite the severity of the recessions, the labor force

continued to expand, although at a cyclically induced slower

pace. During the 1975-76 expansionary period, the labor

force grew at a much faster rate than in other recovery

periods. The strong labor force growth in 1976 kept un ­

employment higher than it might otherwise have been.4

The growth in the labor force in 1976 reflected mainly the

unusually large increase in labor force participation by

adult women. Unlike previous recessions, labor force participation rates increased in 1974, remained high in 1975,

and rose to a record 61.6 percent in 1976.

U.S. labor force growth rates and participation rates

would have been higher than those recorded in the recession years of 1971 and 1975 if increasing numbers of persons had not withdrawn from the labor market when faced

with bleak job prospects. The trend for these discouraged

workers—persons who would have been looking for work

except that they believed they could not find a job-has

generally paralleled the cyclical changes in the number of

jobless. The number of discouraged workers reached an alltime high of 1.2 million persons in the third quarter of

1975. As economic conditions improved, many of these

persons entered or reentered the labor force. In 1976, the

number of discouraged workers declined to 916,000. However, in the second quarter of 1977, the number of discouraged workers rose to nearly 1.1 million, the highest

level since the third quarter of 1975.

Employment in the United States rose throughout

the 1960-76 period, except for 1961 and 1975. In 1961,

the decline was negligible; in 1975 employment fell by 1.3

percent. However, the 1975 decline in employment was

much less than the increase in joblessness because of the

large numbers of labor force reentrants and first-time jobseekers. Employment growth, which resumed in the second

quarter of 1975, accelerated to 3.2 percent in 1976. By

May 1977, the number of employed persons had increased

by 6.3 million from the recession low of 84.1 million in

March 1975. More than 40 percent of the increase took

place after October 1976, an average of 380,000 new jobs

per month.

Canada. Canadian joblessness has been significantly higher

4

Robert W. Bednarzik and Stephen St. Marie, “Employment and

Unemployment in 1976,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1977,

p. 10.

than in the other industrial nations, with the exception of

the United States. Only in 1965, 1966, and 1967 was unemployment below 4 percent. Unemployment was below 5

percent in 1968-69, rose to over 6 percent in 1971-72, and

then fell to 5.4 percent in 1974. In the following year, unemployment began rising rapidly and by December 1976

the jobless rate had climbed to 7.5 percent, the highest in

15 years. The unemployment rate continued upward in

early 1977, reaching 8.3 percent in April.

Regional differences in economic structure, employment, and incomes have remained an obstacle in achieving

lower unemployment in Canada. Jobless rates are highest in

the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, where the rates in 1976

were 11.0 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively. In the

most industrialized province, Ontario, the unemployment

rate was 6.2 percent. The Prairie provinces, at 5.9 percent,

recorded the lowest regional rates.

Chart 5. Canada: Working-Age Population,

Labor Force, and Employment,

Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

27

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Growth in the Canadian labor force has been very

rapid, outpacing all other nations studied in the period

1959-76. Much of the increase resulted from the entry of

young persons and women into the work force. After reaching 5.5 percent in 1966, the labor force growth rate fluctuated within a range of 2.6 to 3.4 percent a year. In 1973

and 1974, the pace of labor force growth accelerated to

above 4 percent a year, but in late 1974 growth began to

taper off. The labor force increased by 3.6 percent in 1975

and by 2.5 percent in 1976. Contributing to these lower

rates of growth was the new immigration law of 1974 that

tied immigration more closely to labor market needs. In

the period 1965 through 1974, the number of new immigrants entering the country to work was equal to one-third

of the total increase in the labor force; in 1967 and 1968,

the number was equal to nearly half of the increase. In

1975 and 1976, when the labor force grew more slowly,

new immigrants were equal to 23 percent and 20 percent,

respectively, of the increase in the work force.

Australia. Unemployment in Australia fluctuated within the

low and narrow range of 1.3 to 1.6 percent from 1964, the

first year for which labor force survey data are available, to

1971. Joblessness increased in 1972 to a 9-year high of 2.2

percent of the labor force and remained near 2 percent until late 1974. Between 1974 and 1975, unemployment

doubled. The jobless rate in the third and fourth quarters

of 1975, at 4.6 percent, was a record high for the postwar

period. Employment rose in 1976, after falling marginally

in 1975, but unemployment remained close to 1975 levels

since the rise in employment was not sufficient to absorb

the growth of the labor force. Joblessness increased steadily

in 1977, reaching a new postwar high of 5.7 percent in the

third quarter. In response to the slack in the labor market,

Australia, traditionally a country encouraging immigration,

tightened its immigration laws. Since 1972, persons bom

outside the country have accounted for 27 percent of the

labor force.

Japan. Unemployment in Japan has remained lower and

more stable than in the other major industrial nations.

From 1960 through 1974, joblessness averaged 1.3 percent

and never rose above 1.7 percent. However, beginning in

1974, the trend toward labor shortage was reversed. Employment declined, and in late 1974 unemployment began

moving upward steadily, reaching a peak in the fourth quarter of 1975 of 2.1 percent—the highest unemployment rate

recorded in Japan since 1959. Unemployment remained at

around the 2-percent level throughout 1976 and the first

half of 1977.

As these low rates indicate, joblessness is not highly

sensitive to the demand for labor in Japan. Employers, with

their tradition of lifetime employment policies, prefer to reduce working hours, terminate contracts with part-time,

seasonal, and temporary workers, reduce new hires of

school leavers, and encourage “voluntary retirement.” DurC hart 6. Australia: Working-Age Population,

Labor Force, and Employment,

Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1964-76

ing the 1974-75 recession, Japanese employers also stepped

up the practice of transferring employees from one job to

another within the same company and setting up special

education and training programs to avoid layoffs of permanent employees. In 1975, employment of regular workers

increased by 0.5 percent, but employment of temporary

workers and day laborers fell by over 5 percent. New hires

of school leavers were reduced sharply as more than onethird of Japan’s major businesses cancelled plans to hire

college and university graduates.

Most firms employing over 1,000 permanent workers

solicited “voluntary retirements” by offering larger than

normal lump-sum retirement allowances. These programs

were aimed specifically at younger women who tend to

resign before their marriage and older workers with about 5

years left before mandatory retirement. The firms offered

job placement guidance to those “voluntary retirees” who

wished to continue working. Those not placed in new jobs

28

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 7. Japan: Working-Age Population,

Labor Force, and Employment,

Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

Millions

100

Ratio scale

Labor force

4Q Employment

I

3 5 !

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

were eligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits

while jobseeking. Persons 55 years of age and over are eligible to collect benefits for up to 300 days.

Under the Employment Insurance Law of 1975, the

Japanese government subsidized enterprises which kept

employees on the payroll rather than laying them off. This

employment adjustment grant enabled enterprises in industries designated by the Ministry of Labor as economically

impacted to pay up to 90 percent of the worker’s basic

wage for 6 months with a 3-month additional extension. In

small and medium-size firms, the government subsidy

amounted to two-thirds of the worker’s wage; in large-size

firms, one-half of wage costs were covered. Approximately

one-third of all Japanese workers were eligible for such

compensation during 1975.

The Japanese labor force declined in 1974 for the

first time in the postwar era. This decline was attributed to

recession-induced labor force withdrawals of laid-off contractual and temporary employees. Many of these workers,

mainly women, apparently preferred to withdraw from the

labor force rather than look for another job. Thus, the labor

force participation rate varies with the Japanese business

cycle, and recorded unemployment does not appear to be

a highly sensitive indication of the number of persons who

would seek work if jobs were available.

France. In the early 1960’s, unemployment in France remained below 2 percent of the civilian labor force, with a

low of 1.3 percent in 1963. In 1967, the economy slowed

down and the French jobless rate moved upward to 2.0

percent. Joblessness continued to move toward the “warning point” set forth in the government’s economic plan260,000 persons registered as unemployed—which would

amount to an unemployment level of nearly 3 percent (adjusted to U.S. concepts) and in May 1968 a crisis developed. Student riots and workers’ strikes immobilized the naChart 8. France: Working-Age Population,

Labor Force, and Employment,

Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

29

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion. After the spring strikes, economic activity picked up

as industry filled back orders and attempted to meet the

increased consumer demand created by the sharp wage increases of the strike settlement. Unemployment declined

in 1969, but then rose to around 2.8 percent in late 1970.

It remained at this level until the end of 1974, when joblessness rose sharply in response to strikes in public enterprises and agencies and progressively tightening anti-inflation policies. In 1975, unemployment rose by almost 40

percent. This was equal to the rise in 1968, but the 1975

increase came on top of an unemployment level that already exceeded the 1968 rate. Joblessness continued to

expand in 1976 and 1977. A postwar high of 5.8 percent

was recorded in the third quarter of 1977.

In response to the higher levels of unemployment, the

French government halted immigration from outside the

European Community in June 1974 and tightened controls

on illegal immigration. Employment of foreigners with or

without work permits became more strictly monitored. In

1973, foreign workers had constituted about 10 percent of

employment in France.

Another response to rising unemployment was the enactment of a new unemployment compensation program

financed jointly by employers and employees, with initial

funding provided by the government, whereby workers laid

off for economic reasons are paid 90 percent of their former gross wage for up to 1 year unless they are reemployed.

This program became effective January 1, 1975. By mid1976, approximately one of every eight persons registered as unemployed was receiving this high benefit rate.

The amount and duration of official assistance for workers

on short-time schedules was also increased. The government

subsidized 90 percent of employer-paid supplementary assistance for workers on short time. The number of workers

partially unemployed peaked at 385,000 in November

1975, and more than 1.4 million days were compensated

for by unemployment assistance. In 1976, the situation

showed a marked improvement. The number of persons on

short time declined from 300,000 in 1975 to 132,000, and

7 million days were paid for compared to 15 million days in

1975.

Other measures to promote employment were government subsidies and financial incentives. The subsidies were

aimed at encouraging the training of unemployed 16- to 25-

year-olds. Subsidies for training programs of at least 6

months provided up to 100 percent of training costs plus

the minimum wage. The financial incentives were made

available to firms hiring, for at least 1 year, young persons

in search of their first job or persons unemployed more

than 6 months.

Germany. During Germany’s labor shortage of 1960-66,

even normally inactive handicapped and older workers

were integrated into the labor force. Unemployment was

below 1 percent from 1961 through 1966, falling to the

extremely low level of 0.3 percent in 1965-66. After these

years of sustained growth, the Germany economy began to

slow down in mid-1966. In 1967, for the first time in the

history of the Federal Republic, real output fell short of

the level of the preceding year. The unemployment rate

more than quadrupled, rising to 1.3 percent in 1967. Employment of German nationals dropped by over 500,000

in 1967, and almost 300,000 foreign workers left Germany

between mid-1966 and mid-1967.

Recovery from the recession was rapid. Labor shortages soon reappeared and the labor market became increasingly tight. By October 1969, over seven vacancies were reported for every one person registered as jobless. Foreign

workers returned to Germany as the economic picture brightened. Unemployment again fell below the 1-percent level in

1969-73.

C hart 9. Germany: Working-Age Population,

Labor Force, and Employment,

Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

Millions

60

55

Ratio scale I

1'

Working-age population

I9 6 0 1964 1968 1972 1976

30

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Growth in industrial output leveled off in 1973, and

the labor market began to show signs of easing. The Arab

oil embargo in November accelerated the deterioration,

causing an interruption in German industrial production.

Many firms curtailed production and introduced short-time

workweeks. The number of workers receiving compensation

for short-time work rose sharply to more than 300,000 in

February 1974. By February 1975, a new high of almost 1

million workers were on short time. Despite an average of

more than 770,000 workers on short time, employment fell

by 890,000 in 1975—which exceeded the increase in unemployment by 400,000. The average number of unemployed

persons in Germany more than quadrupled between 1973

and 1975, and averaged 3.7 percent of the labor force in

the latter year. In 1976 and 1977, joblessness leveled off at

3.6 percent.

Since the late 1950’s, the German work force has

been supplemented by an influx of foreign workers who, at

the peak of the inflow in 1973, constituted 10 percent of

employment. Labor shortages and higher wages in Germany

and lack of job opportunities in Southern Europe made the

German labor market increasingly attractive to migrants.

During periods of recession, foreign workers add an element

of flexibility to the German labor market. (See “Labor migration” in chapter 5.) In November 1973, a ban was passed on recruiting foreign workers from outside the European

Community. Foreign workers were reluctant to leave Germany because they believed that they would not be able to

return.

In late 1974 and early 1975, the German government

introduced measures to reduce the number of registered unemployed foreigners by requiring them to accept jobs which

paid less than their former wages or unemployment compensation. If two such offers were refused, these workers

could no longer collect unemployment benefits. Other

efforts to limit employment of migrants included the preferential hiring of German nationals, denial of work permits

to dependents of migrants, stiffer penalties for illegally employing aliens, and restrictions on the right of immigrants

to settle in areas where foreigners constitute more than 12

percent of the population. In response to these restrictions,

the number of foreign workers continued to decline in

1976, while employment of German nationals began to rise.

By mid-1976, the number of migrants in Germany had fallen to 19 million, which was about the number of migrants

in 1970.

Great Britain. The jobless rate in Great Britain was below 3

percent during 1959-66 except in 1963, when slackness in

the economy was aggravated by a particularly severe winter

which disrupted outdoor work. However, in 1967 the unemployment rate rose above 3 percent as measures to alleviate serious deficits in the balance of payments took

priority over the full-employment goal. A wage and price

freeze in July 1966 was followed by even more stringent

measures, including devaluation of the pound in 1967. UnC hart 10. Great Britain: Working-Age Populalation, Labor Force, and Employment, Adjusted to U .S . Concepts,

1960-76

Millions

Em ploym ent

20

P w

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

employment was in the 3- to 3.4-percent range until 1971

when it jumped to 3.9 percent as British firms engaged in

the biggest work force cutbacks since the depression.5 The

drastic “shake-out” of labor was in response to sharply rising labor costs and slackening demand. Some of the cutbacks were viewed as a delayed reaction to the slow growth

of the late 1960’s.6

Unemployment rose throughout 1971 and into 1972.

In February, millions of workers were laid off as a coal strike

caused the Government to decree emergency power cuts for

factories. The 1972 unemployment rate of 4.2 percent was

5 See “Heath Tightening Unemployment.” The Washington Post,

December 6, 1971, p. D 12; and “Britain’s Jobless: A Rapid Rise,”

U.S. News and World Report, May 24, 1971, pp. 84-85.

6British Central Statistical Office, Economic Trends, May 1971,

p. ii.

31

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the highest yet in the postwar era. Economic growth accelerated in 1973 and unemployment moved back down to

3.2 percent. However, unemployment began to rise again

with the beginning of the oil crisis in the autumn of 1973.

The Arab oil embargo, combined with labor disputes in the

coal and electricity industries, brought about the imposition by the Government of a 3-day workweek in early 1974.

In January 1974, the number of workers temporarily laid

off and receiving unemployment compensation was over

900,000, up from only 8,000 in December. Most of these

workers were not counted as unemployed since they did

some work during the week. The number of persons on

temporary layoff fell back to more normal levels in April

and May as industry returned to full workweeks.

In 1974 and 1975 British output declined and in

1976 it rose only slightly. The situation deteriorated markedly from the spring of 1976 onwards, and the second half

of the year saw slow growth, accelerating inflation, and a

growing foreign deficit. Faced with such developments,

economic policy was tightened increasingly from spring onwards, and unemployment responded by reaching a postwar high of 6.4 percent, up from 4.7 percent in 1975. In

1977, unemployment rose further, averaging 7 percent for

the first three quarters.

After rising slowly in the 1960’s through 1966, the

British labor force began to decline in number. By 1971,

it was more than 600,000 below the 1966 high. British projections for the period, assuming the demand for labor to

remain at the 1964-66 level, had indicated continued slow

increases in the work force. Therefore, the decline apparently reflected withdrawals from or nonappearance in

the labor market of persons discouraged by the bleak job

situation. Since 1971, the labor force has been increasing

by up to 9.5 percent a year as a result of increased participation by married women. However, employment has not

grown since 1974.

Italy. After reaching 5 percent in 1959, the Italian unemployment rate fell to a low point of 2.4 percent in 1963,

but the decline was accompanied by a sharp increase in the

consumer price index.7 Stringent anti-inflationary measures

were taken beginning in the summer of 1963, but unemployment did not begin to increase until the spring of 1964.

It continued to increase, reaching 3.8 percent in 1966, the

highest rate since 1960. Economic growth picked up strongly in 1967 and joblessness ranged between 3.1 and 3.4 percent until 1972, when it rose to 3.6 percent in lagged response to the lengthy recession which began in 1970.

By the second quarter of 1974, unemployment had

fallen to 2.5 percent. However, in mid-1974, the Arab oil

Estimates of the level of unemployment from 1959 to 1972

are considered less reliable than those for 1973 onward because they

are based partly on adjustment factors derived from surveys for later

years. (See appendix B.) However, this probably does not have a

large effect on the year-to-year trend in unemployment.

embargo, spiraling inflation, and the instability of the government all combined to create a crisis. Industrial output

fell and the jobless rate rose, reaching 3.4 percent in the

second quarter of 1975. The drop in output in 1975, as

measured by gross domestic product, was the sharpest

among the nine countries studied. Unemployment rose to

3.8 percent in the third quarter of 1976, and averaged 3.6

percent for the year. Unemployment declined in the first

half of 1977, but rose sharply back to 3.6 percent in the

third quarter.

Unemployment does not fully reflect the degree of

labor underutilization in Italy. Agreements reached between

management and labor have helped to share the burden of

recession by encouraging partial rather than full unemployment. The employer-financed Wage Supplement Fund

allows employers to reduce production while maintaining

employment by placing workers on shorter hours and paying supplements amounting to 80 percent of lost gross earnChart 1 1 . Italy: Working-Age Population,

Labor Force, and Employment,

Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

Millions

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

32

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ings. In 1975, over 350 million hours, more than double

the 1974 level and approximately 11 percent of total hours

worked, were compensated for by the fund. Consequently,

the deterioration in the demand for labor in industry is

initially reflected by a decline in working hours and a rise

in the number of persons involuntarily working part time.

Employment increased for the fourth consecutive

year in 1976, a reversal of the general decline of the 1960’s.

The recent rising trend in employment can be attributed

partly to the extensive use of shortened workweeks and the

rapid growth of the service sector.8

The Italian labor force has also been on the rise since

1972, after declining by 9 percent since 1960. The labor

force participation rate, however, continued to decline until 1974 when an upturn in the female rate compensated for

a continuing decline in the male rate. With less than half of

the working-age population in the labor force, Italy has the

lowest participation rate among the major industrial nations.

(See chapter 4.)

Chart 12. Sweden: Working-Age Population,

Labor Force, and Employment,

Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1961-76

Millions

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

Table 9. Sweden: Effect of labor market programs on

unemployment, selected years, 1961-76

(Numbers in thousands)

Year

Unemployment

adjusted to

U.S. concepts

Number of

persons in labor

market programs1

Unemployment

plus persons in

labor market

programs as

percent of

civilian labor

force

Number Rate

(percent)

1961 . . 52 1.4 15 1.9

1965 . . 44 1.2 33 2.1

1967 . . 79 2.1 48 3.4

1968 . . 85 2.2 63 3.9

1969 . . 72 1.9 65 4.1

1970 . . 59 1.5 70 3.3

1971 . . 101 2.6 83 4.6

1972 . . 107 2.7 103 5.3

1973 . . 98 2.5 1 1 2 5.3

1974 . . 80 2.0 102 4.5

1975 . . 67 1.6 94 3.9

1976 . . 66 1.6 1 1 2 4.3

1 Monthly average of persons in training for labor market reasons,

work training programs, public relief works, archive work and relief

work for musicians, and sheltered and semi-sheltered workshops.

SOURCE: National Labour Market Board, Arbetsmarknadsstatistik (Labor Market Statistics), various issues; and BLS calculations.

Sweden. Throughout the period since the Swedish labor

force survey was begun in 1961, unemployment has averaged

about 2 percent, ranging from 1.2 percent (1965) to 2.7

percent (1972). Labor market developments in Sweden differed markedly from the trend in other industrial countries

during the recent international recession. While most other

industrial countries were deep in the throes of recession,

Sweden’s unemployment rate fell from 2 percent in 1974

to 1.6 percent in 1975 and 1976. Swedish output grew

slowly during the 1974-75 period, while output was falling sharply in the other countries. A tendency of Swedish

enterprises to hoard labor in anticipation of an upturn in

the world economy helped to maintain employment.9 In

addition, the number of persons in relief works and training programs was kept at a very high level.

In Sweden, “active labor market” policies are highly

developed and provide a comprehensive system of institutions for retraining and relief works. Sweden’s training program is the largest in the world relative to the size of the

labor force; Sweden is the only country which deliberately

uses adult training programs for countercyclical purposes.

The Swedish Labor Market Board acted quickly in the

1967-68 and 1971-72 recessions to meet the unemployment problem, and its program kept the jobless rate from

8The high incidence of work done at home in Italy, which goes 

virtually unrecorded, is another element to consider when interpreting employment statistics. Partly as a result of legislation passed in

1973, home workers have been increasingly taking up recorded employment. See Economic Surveys: Italy (Paris, Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development, January 1976), p. 14.

Q

The Swedish Economy, Preliminary National Budget (Stockholm, Economic Department, Ministry of Finance, 1976), p. 97.

33

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
moving higher Table 9 shows the effect of the Swedish

labor market programs on unemployment rates in selected

years of the 1961-76 period, This table shows that Sweden’s

unemployment rate was about 1.5 percent in both 1961

and 1976. However, the great expansion in the number of

persons in labor market programs, from 15,000 to 112,000,

indicates the potential for a large impact on the unemployment rate. Without the extensive training and relief programs, the unemployment rate might have been slightly

higher in 1961 and considerably higher in 1976.

Although there has been little organized recruitment

of foreign workers, they constitute about 6 percent of the

Swedish labor force. The majority of these workers come

from the nearby Scandinavian countries—Finland, Denmark,

and Norway. The predominance of Nordic workers is due

to the Convention on a Common Labor Market which allows

free movement of labor among the Scandinavian countries.

Since a cyclically related outflow of migrants in 1973 , the

number of aliens employed in Sweden has risen slowly.

34

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 3. Unemployment by Age and Sex

In the United States, unemployment rates vary widely

by age and sex. Teenagers characteristically have the highest unemployment rate of any age group in the labor force;

workers age 55 and over have relatively low jobless rates;

and, throughout the post-World War II period, American

women have had higher unemployment rates than American men. The pattern of unemployment by age and sex in

the other major developed countries often parallels the U.S.

experience; however, there are some significant differences

which are pointed out in this chapter.

Table 10 presents unemployment rates by age and sex

adjusted to U.S, concepts for the nine countries covered in

Table 10. Unemployment rates by age and sex, 1968, 1970, and 1974-76

(Percent of civilian labor force)

Sex and age

United States Canada1Australia

Former basis Revised basis

1968 1970 1974 1975 1976 1968 1970 1974 1968 1970 1974 1975 1976 1968 1970 1974 1975 1976

Both sexes

All working ages

Teenagers2 . . .

20 to 24 years .

25 to 54 years

55 years and over

Male

All working ages

Teenagers2 . . .

20 to 24 years .

25 to 54 years

55 years and over

Female

All working ages

Teenagers2 . . .

20 to 24 years

25 to 54 years

55 years and over

3.6

12.7

5.8

2.3

2.2

2.9

11.6

5.1

1.7

2.1

4.8

14.0

6.7

3.4

2.3

4.9

15.3

8.2

3.4

2.8

4.4

15.0

8.4

2.8

2.9

5.9

15.1

7.9

4.5

2.8

5.6

16.0

9.0

3.8

2.9

4.8

15.5

8.7

3.1

2.7

6.7

16.5

9.5

4.9

3.3

8.5

19.9

13.6

6.4

4.7

7.9

20.1

14.3

5.7

4.5

9.3

19.7

12.7

7.5

5.1

7.7

19.0

12.0

5.7

4.6

7.0

19.2

12.0

4.9

4.4

8.6 

18.7

11.9

6.8

4.9

4.8

11.3

6.3

3.6

4.2

5.5

13.5

7.7

4.1

5.0

3.5

8.6

4.2

2.2 

(4 )

5.9

14.3

8.3

4.3

4.9

6.6

16.2

10.5

4.8

5.5

4.5

11.7

5.1

2.9

(4 )

5.4

12.2

8.3

3.8

3.9

5.7

13.5

9.4

4.0

4.3

4.9

10.4

6.6

3.4

(4 )

4.5

}7 .7

>3.4

4.6

}8.7

}3.5

4.4

}6.5

}3.5

5.7

} 10.1

} 4.2

5.7

}11.3

) 4 1

5.8

} 8.6

} 4.5

]

5.4

11.6

7.6

33.9

34.0

4.8

2.2

7.9

3.2

3.6

6.4

10.9

7.3

}5.1

L ...... i

6.9

15.0

9.9

5.1

4.4

6.2

15.4

10.5

4.2

4.2

8.1

14.5

9.2

6.8

4.7

7.1

15.8

10.6

5.3

3.9

6.4

16.4

11.2

4.3

3.7

8.4

15.1

9.9

7.0

4.4

1.5

4.2

1.9

1.0

.7

1.1

3.6

1.5

.7

(4 )

2.6 

4 8 

2.6 

2.1 

I4 )

1.4

3.9

1.6

1,0

.7

1.0

3.7

1.2

6

<4 )

2.2

4.2

2.1

1.8 

(4 )

2.3

6.9

3.2

1.5

.8

1.8

6.1

2.9

1.1 

(4 )

3.2

7.7

3.8

2.1 

(4 )

4.2

12.7

5.9

2.7

2.2

3.5

11.2

5.6

2.2 

2.3

5.7

14.3

6.2

3.7

(4 )

4.4

13.1

6.2

2.8

2.0

3.7

11.8

6.1 

2.3

2 1

5.7

14.6

6 3

3.8

(4 )

Japan France5 Germany 6

1968 1970 1974 1975 1976 1968 1970 1974 1975 1976 i 968 I 1970 1974 1975 1976

Both sexes

All working ages . 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.8 4.5 1.5 .6 1.4 3.4 3.6

Teenagers2 . . . . 2.3 2.0 2.6 3.7 4.1 7.3 7.0 9.7 16.1 11 OK 3.8 2.0 2.7 6.6 7.2

20 to 24 years . . 1.8 2.0 2.2 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.7 4.8 6.6 1.4 .7 1.9 5.0 5.4

25 to 54 years 1.0 .9 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.6 \ 7 O 1.1 .5 1.3 3.0 3.0

55 years and over 1.2 .9 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.1 2 6 2.5 :| 2.3 f •-> 1.6 .5 1.0 2.1 2 6

Male

All working ages . 1.2 1.2 1.4 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.7 3.0 3.2 1.3 .5 1.3 3.2 3.2

Teenagers2 . . . . 2.6 2.7 3.2 5.1 5.5 6.4 5.4 6.7 14.1 \ 7 c 3.7 16 2.7 6.6 6.3

20 to 24 years . . 1.8 1.9 2.1 3.2 3.1 2 9 3 0 3.4 6.4 i / D 1.3 .6 1.9 5.7 5.2

25 to 54 years . . 1.0 .9 1.1 1.6 1.8 1.2 S 1.0 1.9 ’ X94 .9 .4 1.1 2.9 2.7

55 years and over 1.5 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.3 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.2 7 Z M 1.6 .5 1.0 2.3 2.5

Female

All working ages . 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.8 1.7 3.6 3 8 4 5 5.0 6,6 1.8 8 1.6 3 6 4.2

Teenagers2 . . . , 2.0 1.3 2.1 2 4 2.7 8.5 9.1 Ii 13.6 18.7 \ i o 7

4 0 2.4 2.8 6 6 8.1

20 to 24 years , . 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.7 2.8 4.1 4.5 ! 6.3 6.8 / 1 o. / 1.6 .7 1.9 4.2 5.5

25 to 54 years , . .9 .9 1.3 1.7 1.7 3.1 3 3 ! 3.6 3.8 l 4 7

1,4 7 1.5 3.2 3.6

55 years and over . <4 ) L _

.7 1 1 .7 2 1 2 7 j 3.1 2.4 / *+. / 1.5 .5 .8 1.9 2.7

See footnotes at end of table.

35

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 10. Unemployment rates by age and sex, 1968, 1970, and 1974-76—Continued

(Percent of civilian labor force)

Sex and age

Great Britain Italy7 Sweden

1971 1973 1974 1968 1970 1974 1975 1968 1970 1974 1975 1976

Both sexes

All working a g e s ........................................................................ 3.9 3.2 2.8 3.5 3.2 2.9 3.3 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.6 1.6

Teenagers2 .................................................................................. 7.0 1 ^ c 12.4 11.9 14.3 16.8 5.6 4.3 6.8 5.6 5.5

20 to 24 years ............................................................................ 4.8 / 4 '1 } 4.5 9.3 8.8 9.1 10.3 3.0 2.2 3.2 2.8 2.8

25 to 54 years ............................................................................ 3.3 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1

55 years and over ...................................................................... 3.5 4.1 2.7 1.2 .8 .4 .6 2,1 1.7 2.0 1 7 1.5

Male

All working a g e s ........................................................................ 3.9 3.5 2.8 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.3 14 1.7 1.3 1.3

Teenagers2 ............................ ..................................................... 7.4 , A A \ A C 12.5 12.2 14.3 16.2 5.5 3.4 5.6 4.2 4.2

20 to 24 years ............................................................................ 4.8 / H.D 9.3 8.7 9.0 10.3 3.1 2.0 2.6 2.2 2.2

25 to 54 years ............................................................................ 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.8 .9 1.1 .8 .8

55 years and over .................................................. .................. 4.3 4.9 2.6 1.5 1.0 .5 .7 2.6 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.4

Female

All working a g e s ......................................................................... 3.8 2.7 2.8 4.1 3.9 3.8 4.5 2.1 1.7 2 4 2.0 2.0

Teenagers2 .................................................................................. 6.6 \ A A 11.9 11.5 14.1 17.5 6.6 5.4 8.0 7.0 7.0

20 to 24 years . . . . ........................................................... 4.7 ^ 3.8 > *f.*+ 9.1 9.0 9.3 10.3 2.9 2.4 4.0 3.5 3.4

24 to 54 years ............................................................................ 3.6 2.5 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.4

55 years and over .................................................................. ... 2.0 1.9 2.9 .3 .4 (4 ) .2 1.2 1.6 2.3 1.5 1.6

*See appendix B for descriptions of the former and revised

series.

214- to 19-year-olds in Italy; 15- to 19-year-olds in Australia,

Canada, Germany, Great Britain (1971), and Japan; 1 6 -to 19-yearolds in United States, France, Great Britain (1973-74), and Sweden.

3 Estimated by BLS.

4Not statistically significant.

5 French data are for March of each year.

6German data are for April of 1968, 1970, and 1974, and for

May of 1975 and 1976.

Italian data are not adjusted to U.S. concepts.

NOTE: See appendix C for methods of adjustment to U.S.

concepts by age and sex.

this report. Data are shown for selected years of the 1968-

76 period. British statistics on unemployment by age and

sex could only be shown for years when the General Household Survey was available. For Italy, data could not be adjusted to U.S. concepts by age and sex. To provide some

basis for comparison, figures from the unrevised Italian

labor force survey have been shown in table 10. It is not

possible to indicate how well these figures approximate unemployment by age and sex under U.S. concepts. The data

exclude many persons who were seeking work but who did

not respond that they were unemployed; on the other hand,

the data include a large number of persons who took no

active steps to find work in the past 30 days. (See appendix

B.) It should also he noted that the data for France and

Germany relate to one month in each year and are not

seasonally adjusted.

The year 1968 was one of relatively low unemployment in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Japan,

but one of relatively high unemployment, for the 1960’s,

in the European countries. Of the years covered, 1975 and

1976 were the ones of highest unemployment in all countries except Italy and Sweden.

Four age groups are shown-teenagers. 20 to 24 years,

25 to 54 years, and 55 years and over. However, for Great

Britain, a breakdown of teenagers and 20- to 24-year-olds

could not be made in 1973 and 1974; for France, this breakdown could not be made for 1976. The lower age limit foi

teenagers has been adapted to the age at which compulsory

schooling ends. Appendix C discusses the methods of adjusting each country’s unemployment rates by age and sex.

Teenage unemployment

In the United States, young workers have had substantially higher rates of unemployment than adults. In

fact, in every year since the end of World War II, in recession and prosperity alike, teenagers have had the highest unemployment rates of any age group in the labor

force. The casual methods teenagers use to find jobs, their

frequent entrances and exits from the labor market, and the

limited horizon of their job search activities are major contributing factors.1 American teenagers change jobs more

frequently than adults and often experience unemployment between jobs. Also, the large proportion of in-school

teenagers who seek part-time or part-year work contributes to high youth unemployment in the United Slates.

Some of the major factors affecting youth unemployment

rates in the United States and abroad are discussed in chapter 5.

1 Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages, BLS Bulletin 1657.

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1970), p. 4.

36

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 11. Ratios of teenage to adult unemployment rates1, 1968, 1970, and 1974-76

Country

Both sexes Male Female

1968 1970 1974 1975 1976 1968 1970 1974 1975 1976 1968 1970 1974 1975 1976

United S tates...................................... . 5.5 4.5 4.2 3.1 3.3 6.8 5.4 5.0 3.5 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.4 2.6 2.8

Canada

Former basis . ................................... 3.1 3.3 3.2 (2) <2 ) 3.3 3.4 3.4 (2) <2 ) 3.9 4.0 3.1 <2> (2)

Revised basis...................................... (2 ) (2 > 3.0 2.9 3.0 <2) (2 ) 3.8 3.7 3.8 <2 ) (2) (2 ) 2.1 2.2

Australia.................................................. 4.2 3,9 4.6 4.7 4.7 5.1 6.2 5.5 5.1 5.1 2.3 2.3 3.7 3.9 3.8

Japan ...................................... 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.1 2,2 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.6

France . ......................................... ... 4.1 3.9 5.1 6.2 <2 ) 5.3 6.0 6.7 7.4 (2 ) 2.7 2.8 3.8 4.9 (2)

Germany ......................................... 3.5 4.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 4.1 4.0 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.9 3.4 1.9 2.1 2.2

Great Britain ......................................... (2) 32.1 (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) 3 2.3 (2 ) <2 ) (2 ) (2 ) 3 1.9 (2 ) (2) (2)

Italy4 ...................................................... 6.2 7.4 11.0 10.5 (2 ) 6.2 7.6 11.9 11.6 (2 ) 6.0 7,2 8.8 8.3 <2 )

Sweden .................................................. 3.3 3.9 5.2 5.1 5.0 3.1 3.8 5.1 5.2 5.2 4.1 4.2 5.0 5.0 5.0

1 4 Ratio of teenage unemployment rate to unemployment rate Based on data which have not been adjusted to U.S. concepts.

for persons 25 to 54 years of age.

2Not available. SOURCE: Table 10.

319 71.

In comparison with most other countries, teenage unemployment rates in the United States are relatively high

(table 10 and chart 13). In the United States, Italy, and

Canada, teenage unemployment rates were higher than 10

percent in all years studied. Unemployment of Australian

and French teenagers exceeded 10 percent for the first time

in 1975. Japan, Germany, and Sweden had the lowest

levels of teenage unemployment during the period studied.

These countries also had the lowest overall unemployment

rates.

Germany's teenage unemployment rate of 3.8 percent

in April 1968 was high by the standards of earlier years of

the decade, when teenage unemployment was 1 percent or

less. The German recession of 1967 hit teenagers the hardest. According to a report from the American Embassy in

Bonn, a wave of cyclical dismissals largely affected youths

with a low level of education working at unskilled jobs

which had offered relatively high pay during the boom period. The need for employers to economize during the recession led to the cancellation of many odd jobs filled by the

unskilled youths. By 1969, Germany was again experiencing labor shortages, and in April 1970, teenagers had an

unemployment rate of only 2 percent. By 1974, the teenage jobless rate was still under 3 percent. However, a sharp

increase occurred in 1975, and teenage unemployment rose

further to over 7 percent in 1976, the highest teenage rate

ever recorded by the German Microcensus, which began in

1957.

Youth unemployment in Japan was under 3 percent

throughout 1968-74, but moved upward sharply in 1975-

76. The 1976 rate of 4.1 percent, however, was still the

lowest of any country studied. There is a strong preference

by employers for hiring new high school graduates in Japan,

as shown by the normally highly favorable job vacancy

situation for graduates. Lifetime employment contracts

insure that youth wages are low relative to those of adults

and that youth turnover is low. Also, teenagers account for

a very small and declining proportion of the labor force in

Japan.

Teenage unemployment rates are, of course, affected

by the overall job situation in each country. Therefore,

comparative ratios of teenage unemployment rates to unemployment rates for 25- to 54-year-old adults are shown

in table 11 and chart 14. Such ratios may be affected by the

general level of unemployment, but they more accurately

reflect the relative problems of youth unemployment among

countries. In all years studied, Italy had the widest teenageadult differential.2 In 1968, teenage unemployment was 6

times as high as adult joblessness. Teenage unemployment

in Italy was down slightly in 1970, but the differential

widened so that youth unemployment was 7 times the

adult rate. By 1974-75, the differential had grown to over

10. In 1975, Italian teenagers constituted 6 percent of the

labor force and 32 percent of the unemployed. Problems of

teenagers in the Italian labor market are intensified by a

high dropout rate from school. Over half of Italian youths

entering the labor market have not completed high school.

The United States also ranked high in terms of the

teenage to adult ratio in 1968 and 1970, with teenagers experiencing 4.5 to 5.5 times the unemployment rate of

adults. However, in 1974, Australia, France, and Sweden

moved above the United States. In U.S. recessionary periods, the gap between youth and adult unemployment rates

usually narrows. Thus, the ratio declined from 4.5 in 1970,

to 4.2 in 1974, and to 3.1 in 1975. In contrast, between

1970 and 1975, the ratio of teenage to adult unemployment

rose sharply in Australia, France, Italy, and Sweden.

Canada had relatively high youth unemployment

rates, but a relatively low ratio of youth to adult unemployment. The ratio was about 3 to 1 in each year and was lower

than in Australia, France, Germany, and Sweden where the

overall level of unemployment and teenage unemployment

rates were much lower.

Great Britain and Japan are the countries with the

lowest ratios of teenage to adult unemployment. Data from

2

The Italian data were not adjusted to U.S. concepts.

37

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 13. Youth Unemployment Rates, 1968 and 1976

United States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

Great Britain

Sweden

0 5 10 15

Percent

20 25

38

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the 1975 European Community labor force survey indicate

that the youth-adult differential remained at about 2 for

the United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

The differential has been in the 2.2-2.6 range in Japan. The

ability of the British to keep youth unemployment relatively

low, even during a recession period for the economy, is

related to the special efforts made to help bridge the transition from school to work. British teenagers are assisted by

widespread counseling, guidance, and job orientation programs in the schools, and a separate employment service

for out-of-school youth. The 1,500 officers of the Youth

Employment Service in Great Britain provide individual

counseling to the great majority of school leavers and help

place a significant number of them in their first job. (See

chapter 5.)

Unemployment of older workers

In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the unemployment rate for U.S. workers age 55 and over was somewhat

higher than the rate for workers in the primary working

ages of 25 to 54. Beginning with 1957, however, the unemployment rate for older workers has been either at the same

level or lower than the rate for 25- to 54-year-olds. In 1970,

for example, older workers had a 2.8-percent unemployment

rate; workers age 25 to 54, a 3.4-percent unemployment

rate. The figures shown in table 10 for the eight foreign

countries are based on only a few years’ data, but they indicate some similarities and some dissimilarities with the

U.S. older worker pattern.

Older workers in Italy have much lower unemployment rates than workers in the primary working ages. In

the years studied, the unemployment rate for Italian workers 55 and over was only about half the rate for persons age

25 to 54. The very low unemployment rates for older workers in Italy are related to the fact that very few persons over

55 remain economically active. The labor force participation rate for older Italians was only about 25 percent in

1968 and it has since declined. Italians over age 55 have the

lowest participation rate among the major developed countries.

Similar to the U.S. pattern, unemployment rates for

older workers in Australia appear to be at about the same level as or somewhat lower than the rates for workers in the primary working ages. Japanese unemployment rates for older workers were about the same as or slightly higher than the

rates for 25- to 54-year-olds in 1968 and 1970. However,

in 1974-76 the differential widened. In Germany, workers

55 and over had a higher unemployment rate than workers

in the primary working ages in April 1968, a period of

relatively high unemployment for Germany. However, with

the reappearance of labor shortages, older workers were

easily absorbed. By April 1970, their unemployment rate

was as low as that of persons aged 25 to 54; since April

1974 it has been lower. In contrast to the other countries,

Chart 14. Ratio of Teenage to Aduit

Unemployment Rates, 1968

and 1976

United

States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

Great

Britain

Italy

Sweden

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Ratio

older workers in France, Great Britain, and Sweden appear

to have unemployment rates significantly higher than those

of workers in the primary working ages. This was also true

for Canada in 1968 and 1970, but in 1974 the unemployment rate for older workers was about the same as the rate

39

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
for 25- to 54-year-olds. In 1975-76, the jobless rate for older workers moved well below the rate for 25- to 54-yearolds.

The preceding analysis based on data for all workers

55 and over obscures a sharp difference in the unemployment experience of older men and older women relative to

persons in the primary working ages. Prior to the 1974-75

recession, men 55 and over usually had higher unemployment rates than men aged 25 to 54. Women 55 and over,

on the other hand, generally have unemployment rates at

about the same level as or lower than women aged 25 to 54.

The only exception is Sweden, where older women usually

have had higher unemployment rates than women in the

primary working ages.

Differences among the countries in the unemployment experience of all older workers are partly explained

by this contrast between men and women 55 and over. The

relatively high unemployment rates for older workers in

Canada (1968 and 1970), France, and Great Britain-compared with workers aged 25 to 54-stem from relatively

high unemployment rates for older male workers.

Unemployment by sex

In the United States, Australia, France, Germany,

Sweden,3 and Italy, women are more likely to be unemployed than men. There do not appear to be any significant differences between male and female unemployment

rates in Japan, except among teenagers. Teenage girls have

lower unemployment rates than teenage boys in Japan.

In Great Britain, unemployment was higher for men

than for women in 1973, but the rates were about equival3 For Sweden, the higher male unemployment rate in 1968 was an

exception. From 1961 through 1967 and 1970 through 1976, female

unemployment rates were higher than the male rates.

ent in 1971 and 1974. The higher male rates in 1973 are

largely attributable to the high unemployment rate for men

55 years of age and over. The 1975 European Community

labor force survey indicated that the unemployment rate

for women (5.2 percent) was 1 percentage point higher

than the rate for men (4.2 percent) in the United Kingdom

(Great Britain and Northern Ireland).4

In Canada, the former labor force survey consistently

recorded significantly higher unemployment rates for men

than for women. However, the revised survey, which contains more probing into labor force status, found that female unemployment was much higher than male unemployment in 1976. Revisions on the new basis for earlier years

indicate that unemployment rates for women were slightly

lower than for men in 1968 and slightly higher in 1970. A

Canadian researcher attributed the lower unemployment

rates for women recorded in the 1960’s to the fact that

Canadian women were less fully committed to labor force

activity than were women in other industrial countries.5

Thus, Canadian women tended to bypass unemployment

when both entering and leaving employment.

Women in the United States have higher unemployment rates than men largely because of higher rates for

women in the prime working ages of 25 to 54. Since 1964,

teenage girls have also had a somewhat higher incidence of

unemployment than teenage boys, except during 1975-76.

The pattern in Australia, France, Germany, and Sweden

appears to be similar, with women 25-54 and teenage girls

having higher unemployment rates than men in these age

groups.

4The EC survey results should be closely comparable to the figures

shown in table 10 for Great Britain. The 1973 EC survey indicated

an unemployment rate of 3.6 percent for British men and 2.6 percent for British women. See appendix E for a description of the EC

survey.

5 Sylvia Ostry, Unemployment in Canada (Ottawa, Dominion

Bureau of Statistics, 1968), pp. 5-7.

40

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 4. Participation Rates and Employment-Population Ratios

The labor force participation rate is the proportion of

the population of working age that is in the labor force. For

example, the 1975 civilian population age 16 and over in

the United States was 151,269,000 and the number of persons in the civilian labor force was 92,613,000; consequently,

the civilian labor force participation rate was 61.2 percent.1

The main economic interest in participation rates lies in

their usefulness in explaining fluctuations in the labor force.

The employment-population ratio is derived by

dividing civilian employment by the civilian working-age

population. Thus, the employment-population ratio is the

major component of the labor force participation rate, the

only difference being that the numerator of the employment ratio excludes unemployment.

For certain purposes the employment-population

ratio may be a better indicator of the labor market than the

traditional measure, the unemployment rate.2 Employment

is a more precisely measurable condition than unemployment and, since it is much larger, it is subject to smaller

relative statistical error. Seasonal adjustment is more accurate since seasonal changes are relatively small. Also, the

labor force itself may fluctuate seasonally, in contrast to

the population, which incorporates no seasonal movements.

While the unemployment rate is potentially subject to wide

variations as a result of special developments leading to

growth or contraction in the labor force, the employmentpopulation ratio includes a more stable base for a measure

of labor market activity.

Since participation rates and employment-population ratios are closely related by definition, they are influenced by similar factors and show similar long-term

trends. Over the long term, both measures are chiefly influenced by structural factors of a social and economic

character: Trends toward longer years of schooling, early

retirement, and changing attitudes toward the role of

women. In the short term, changes in these rates largely

reflect fluctuations in business activity. The rate of participation of some segments of the population—young

^ h e U.S. labor force participation rate is usually published in

terms of the total population and labor force over age 16, including

the Armed Forces. In 1975, the participation rate including the

Armed Forces was 61.8 percent. Civilian participation rates are

analyzed in this section for purposes of international comparability.

2James E. McCarthy, “Employment and Inflation in Major Industrial Countries,” The Conference Board Worldbusiness Perspectives No. 28, (August 1975), p. 4. See also Julius Shiskin, “Employment and Unemployment: The Doughnut or the Hole?” Monthly

Labor Review, February 1976, pp. 3-10.

people, women, the elderly—may vary considerably depending on the labor market situation, usually tending to rise

in periods of high demand and fall in periods of slack. In

periods of economic downturn, there is normally a negative impact on participation rates due to discouragement

of marginal workers. Working in the opposite direction,

however, unemployment affecting the principal income

earners of households may encourage previously nonactive

members to seek employment. (See section below on cyclical trends.)

Unlike the long-term trends, short-term movements in

participation rates and employment-population ratios may

diverge. Thus, an expansion in the labor force may cause

the participation rate to rise, while the employment ratio

holds steady or falls because the number of persons seeking

work increases even faster than the number actually finding

jobs.

Table 12 presents civilian labor force participation

rates by sex adjusted to U.S. concepts for nine countries.

Data are shown by sex because the overall rate masks marked

differences in the trends for men and women. All participation rates are annual averages except those for France,

which are for March or October as indicated on the table.

Employment-population ratios for nine countries are

shown in table 13. These figures have not been shown separately by sex, but the long-term trends would be quite

similar to the participation rate trends by sex.

Comparative levels and trends

The overall labor force participation rate in 1976 was

over 60 percent in the United States and five other countries.

Sweden had the highest activity rate at 65 percent. Italy,

with 48 percent of the working-age population economically

active, had the lowest activity rate in the industrialized

world. The rankings by emplovment-populatioii ratios

were about the same as those by participation rates.

Australia and Japan had the highest male activity

rates—81 percent—and Sweden had, by far, the highest female rate at 55 percent. Italy and Germany had the lowest rates for men and Italy had the lowest rate for women.

The female activity rate in Italy was only about one-half

of the rate in Sweden.

Only the United States, Canada, and Sweden had

higher overall activity rates in 1976 than in the early 1960’s.

Based on data since 1964, the trend in Australia has also

been upward. For these countries, sharp increases in female

activity rates more than offset falling male rates.

41

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 12. Labor force participation rates by sex, 1960-76

United Great

Year States Canada Australia Japan France Germany Britain Italy Sweden

Both sexes

1960 . . ................ 59.4 J 56.2 (1 2 3) 67.9 3 61.8 60.0 60.7 58.0 <2)

1 9 6 1 ...............

1962 ................. .

59.3

58.8

56.1

*55.9

<2)

(2 )

67.8

66.9

3 ( * )

o1.4

59.9

59.6

61.5

60.9

57.4

56.3

63.2

63.9

1963 ...................... 58.7 *55.9 (2 ) 65.7 -60 .6 59.4 61.0 54.7 64.4

1964 ........ 58.7 *56.2 58.7 64.8 3 60.4 59.0 60.9 53.9 63.0

1965 ........

1966 ......................

58.9

59.2

*56.5

57.3

59.1

59.5

64.4

64.6

59.7

3 59.8

58.7

58.2

60.9

60.9

52.8

51.2

62.8

63.1

1967 . . ................ 59.6 57.6 59.8 64.8 58.9 57.0 60.6 51.2 62.2

1968 ...................... 59.6 57.6 59.9 64.9 58.6 57.1 60.2 50.5 62.4

1969 ...................... 60.1 57.9 60.2 64.6 58.3 57.1 59.8 50.1 62.3

1970 ...................... 60.4 57.8 60.8 64.5 58.0 57.0 59.4 49.5 62.9

1 9 7 1 ...................... 60.2 58.1 60.7 64.2 57.7 56.5 59.1 49.2 63.2

1972 ...................... 60.4 58.6 60.8 63.8 57.9 55.8 59.4 48.0 63.1

1973 ...................... 60.8 59.7 61.1 64.0 57.8 55.4 60.8 47.9 63.0

1974 ...................... 61.2 60.5 61.4 63.0 58.0 54.4 60.5 47.9 63.8

1975 ...................... 61.2 61.1 61.6 62.4 58.7 53.5 61.0

61.5

47.9 64.9

1976 ................... ... 61.6 61.1 61.4 62.3 58.7 53.2 48.0 65.3

Men

1960 ...................... 83.3 182.2 (2 ) 84.2 3 84.3 82.7 86.0 84.7 (2 )

1 9 6 1 ...................... 83.2 181.3

*80.6

(2 ) 84.3 3 (2) 82.7 85.5 83.8 83.3

1962 ........ 82.0 (2 ) 83.6 83.6 82.2 84.9 82.4 83.0

1963 ...................... 81.4 j 80.0

‘ 79.7

79.4

(2 ) 82.5 83.7 81.8 84.9 80.9 82.8

1964 ................

1965 ......................

81.0

80.7

84.2

84.0

81.5

81.1

82.5

-8 1 .5

81.4

80.8

84.1

83.5

80.3

79.2

81.2

80.7

1966 ...................... 80.4 79.8 84.1 81.1 81.3 80.5 83.1 77.5 80.2

1967 ................... . 80.4 79.3 83.7 81.0 79.8 79.3 82.4 77.5 79.1

1968 ...................... 80.1 78.7 83.3 81.7 78.4 79.1 81.7 76.3 78.9

1969 ...................... 79.8 78.3 83.3 81.5 77.6 79.1 80.8 75.5 77.5

1970 ...................... 79.7 77.8 83.2 81.5 77.1 78.8 79.8 74.5 77.2

1 9 7 1 ...................... 79.1 77.4 82.6 81.9 76.6 77.7 79.1 74.1 76.8

1972 ...................... 79.0 77.5 82.5 81.8 76.3 76.4 78.8 72.6 76.1

1973 ...................... 78.8 78.2 82.1 81.8 75.6 75.2 80.1 71.7 75.7

1974 ...................... 78.7 78.7 81.6 81.5 75.2 73.6 4 78.9 71.3 75.7

1975 ...................... 77.9 78.4 81.0 81.0 75.8 72.1 4 78.8 71.0 76.0

1976 ................... ... 77.5 77.7 80.6 80.9 75.2 72.1 79.0 70.5 75.8

Women

1960 ...................... 37.7 130.2

31.0

i2 ) 52.7 3 43.0 41.2 38.7 33.8 <2 >

1 9 6 1 ...................... 38.1 <2 ) 52.4 3 ( 2) 41.0 39.2 33.8 43.4

1962 ...................... 37.9 31.3

:32.0

.32.9

33.9

(2) 51.3 42.6 40.7 39.5 33.0 45.5

1963 ...................... 38.3 (2 ) 50.0 -40 .9 40.7 39.8 31.2 46.9

1964 ......................

1965 ......................

38.7

39.3

33.4

34.4

49.3

48.8

41.5

-40 .6

40.3

40.0

40.2

40.7

30.1

28.9

45.6

45.6

1966 ................ 40.3 35.4 35.3 49.2 41.4 39.4 41.1 27.4 46.6

1967 ...................... 41.1 36.5 36.3 49.6 40.8 38.4 40.9 27.4 45.8

1968 ...................... 41.6 37.1 36.9 49.2 41.2 38.6 40.8 27.2 46.9

1969 ................... ... 42.7 38.0 37.6 48.8 41.4 38.7 41.0 27.1 47.6

1970 ................... . 43.3 38.3 38.9 49.3 41.2 38.6 41.1 26.8 49.0

1 9 7 1 ...................... 43.3 39.4 39.2 47.7 40.9 38.4 41.3 26.6 50.0

1972 .*................... 43.9 40.2 39.5 46.8 41.7 38.1 41.9 25.7 50.5

1973 ...................... 44.7 41.8 40.6 47.3 42.1 38.3 43.6 26.1 50.8

1974 ...................... 45.6 42.9 41.6 45.7 42.6 37.9 44.5 26.6 52.4

1975 ...................... 46.3 44.2 42.5 44.8 43.1 37.5 4 *5 .2 26.9 54.2

1976 ....................... 47.3 45.0 42.6 45.0 43.8 37.7 45.8 27.6 55.2

1 Estimates by BLS on new survey definitions. Canada has made

revisions back to 1966 on the new basis.

2

Not available.

3Data for October of 1960, 1962, 1964, and 1966. Data for all

other years are for March.

Preliminary estimate.

NOTE: Data relate to the civilian labor force of working age as

a percent of the civilian population of working age. Working age

is defined as 16-year-olds and over in the United States, France,

and Sweden; 15-year-olds and over in Australia, Canada, Germany,

and Japan; and 14-year-olds and over in Italy. For Great Britain,

the lower age limit was raised from 15 to 16 in 1973.

42

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 13. Employmerit-population ratios,1 1960 78

Year

United

States Canada Australia Japan France Germany

Great

Britain Italy Sweden

1960 ........ 56.1 2 52.6 6 66.7 58.6 59.4 59.4 55.8 <3>

1961 . . ................ 55.4 2 52.4 6 66.8 58.1 59.6 59.7 55.6 62.2

1962 . . ................ 55.5 2 52.9 0 66.0 57.1 59.3 59.2 54.7 63.0

1963 ................... 55.4 253.1 {3) 66.3 56.2 59.2 59.0 53,4 63.4

1964 ...................... 55.7 2 53.8 57.9 64.1 56.4 58.8 59.4 52.5 62.0

1965 ................... . 56.2 2 54.5 58.3 63.6 55.7 58.6 59,6 50.9 62.1

1966 . . ................ 56.9 55.4 58.7 63,7 55.6 58.0 59.6 49.2 62.1

1967 ................... . 57.3 55.4 58.9 64.0 55.4 56.3 58.5 49.5 60.9

1968 ...................... 57.5 55.0 58.0 64.1 55.1 56.2 58.2 48.8 61.0

1969 ................... 58.0 55.3 59.3 63.9 55.4 56.6 58.0 48.4 61.1

1970 ........ 57.4 54.5 60.0 63.8 55.5 56.6 57.5 48.0 61.9

1971 ........ 56.6 54,5 59.8 63.4 55.4 56.1 56 8 47.7 61.6

1972 ................ . , 57.0 54.9 59.4 62.8 55.3 55.3 56.9 46.4 61.4

1973 ...................... 57.8 56.4 60.0 63.2 55.4 54.9 58.9 46.2 61.4

1974 ........ 57.8 57.3 60.0 62.2 55.6 53.5 53.8 46.6 62.6

1975 ........ 56.0 56.8 58.9 61.2 54.5 51.5 4 58.2 46.4 63.8

1976 ........ 56.8 56.7 58.7 61.1 54.4 51.3 457.5 46.3 64.2

3 Civilian employment, adjusted to U.S. concepts, as a percent

of the civilian working-age population. The data relate to.persons

16 and over for the United States, France, Sweden, and, beginning

in 1S73, Great Britain; 16 and over for Canada, Japan, Germany,

and prior to 1973, Great Britain; and 14 and over for Italy.

2 Estimates by BLS on new survey definitions. Canada has made

revisions back to 1966 on the new basis.

3Not available.

4 Preliminary.

A downward trend in male participation rates has

occurred in all countries and is attributable to earlier retirement and longer years of schooling. The age structure of

the population also has some effect. Although declining,

male activity rates were still considerably higher than female rates in 1976. However, the gap between male and female rates has narrowed significantly since 1960 in most

countries, For example, Canada’s male activity rate was

2.7 times the female participation rate in 1960; by 1976,

it was only 1.7 times the female rate.

Since I960, female activity rates have fallen in Japan,

Germany, and Italy. The trend in France is difficult to analyze because the data for 1960, 1962, 1964, and 1966 relate to October while figures for 1967 onward are for

March. The available data indicate falling female participation in the labor force between 1960 and 1966 and a rising

trend since 1972.

In Germany, female participation rates rose in the

1950’s, but began to fall in the 1960’s, intensifying the

labor shortage in that country. Adult female activity has

been rising in Germany, but it has not been sufficient to

make up for a sharp drop in participation by teenage girls

brought about by the extension of schooling. The activity

rate for teenage girls has dropped about 20 percentage

points since 1960. The relatively low level of female labor

force participation in Germany may also be related to the

relatively small share of total employment which is in the

service sector.3

In Italy and Japan, female participation rates have

fallen since 1960 for all age groups, in Italy, the declining

trend ended in 1972, but female activity rates have continued to fall in Japan, except for a slight increase in 1976. 3

3 See me section on sectoral employment in ch. 2.

A major factor in the long-term trends for Italy and Japan

has been the sharp postwar decline in agricultural employment in both countries.4 As countries develop industrially,

the initial response of female activity is to fall, along with

the decline in importance of agriculture in the economy.

Women who were economically active as unpaid family

workers on the farm generally withdraw from the labor

force when the family moves to the city. In most instances,

their family responsibilities, low skill qualifications, and

insufficient demand for their services discourage them from

looking for a job. In Italy, about 1 million unpaid female

family workers have left the agricultural sector since i960;

in Japan, about 3 million unpaid female workers have moved

out of agriculture.

Surveys were made in Italy beginning in 1971 on the

reasons for nonparticipation in the labor force.5 In 1971,

women made up 80 percent of the nonparticipants, and

family duties were held responsible for nonparticipation

in more than half the cases. These figures indicated a likelihood that an improvement in the Italian preschooling

structures could significantly increase the rate of female

economic activity.6

4

See footnote 3.

5 Istituto Centrale di Statistica, “Indagine speciale suite persone

non appartenemi alle forze di lavoro,” Supplement to the Monthly

Bulletin o f Statistics, No. 11, November 1911; Annuario diStatistiche de Lavoro, 1975, pp. 109-16, and 1976, pp. 103-15.

6 Data compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development indicate that in Italy 62 percent of children between the ages of 3 and 6 were enrolled in school in 1970. This was

a smaller proportion than in Belgium (96 percent) and France (88

percent), but larger than in the United Kingdom (60 percent) and

the United States (57 percent). See OECD, Educational Statistics

Yearbook, Volume 1, International tables, p. 27.

43

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Along with falling participation rates for women,

Germany and Italy also had absolute declines in the female labor force. Japan, on the other hand, had a rising

female labor force, but it did not rise as fast as the working-age population, so the participation rate declined.

In Italy, female participation rates began to rise in

1973, after many years of decline. This increase may be

partly because home workers progressively are taking up

recorded employment as a result of legislation passed in

1973.7 According to projections by the ILO, a moderate

rise in female labor force participation is foreseen for

Japan, Italy, and Germany in the later 1970’s, reversing

the former long-term trend.8

After the initial fall in female activity rates which

comes with the decline of agriculture, a second stage of

development witnesses a rise in women’s activity rates.

This second stage can be seen most recently in France.

Female activity rates declined until the mid-1960’s and

then began to rise. In the United States, female participation rates rose during most of the post-World War II

period, increasing from about 32 percent just after the

war to 38 percent in 1960 and 47 percent in 1976. Significant increases also occurred in Canada, Australia, and

Sweden. In Great Britain, a more moderate increase oc7Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

Economic Survey o f Italy, (Paris, OECD, January 1976), p. 14.

8International Labour Office, Labour Force 1950-2000, Vols. IV

and V (Geneva, ILO, 1977).

curred, but Britain already had a relatively high level in

1960. France has had only a slight rise in female participation since 1965.

Underlying the rise in female participation rates in

many countries have been the following factors: Lessening of job discrimination against women, increased availability of part-time work, declines in fertility rates, a high

rate of increase in jobs in the service sector, and changing

attitudes towards women’s role in society.

Sweden’s high and rapidly rising female participation rate indicates a more active involvement of married

women in economic life compared with other nations. In

Sweden, 53 percent of married women work, compared

with roughly 46 percent in Japan, 41 percent in the United

States and Great Britain, 38 percent in France, and only 33

percent in Germany. Several factors are responsible for the

high Swedish rate. In Sweden many married women have

no children or only one child. Furthermore, over 60 percent of women with preschool-age children work in

Sweden, compared with about 30 percent in the United

States. Government-financed day care centers provide for

infant care, beginning with children 6 months of age, when

maternity leave expires.9 The introduction of separate taxation for married women in 1971, parenthood insurance

9The Swedish facilities for day care, although extensive compared

with other countries, still fall short of meeting estimated needs. See

Alice H. Cook, The Working Mother, A Survey o f Problems and Programs in Nine Countries (Ithaca, Cornell University, 1975), p. 31.

Table 14. Labor force participation rates by age and sex, 19731

United

Sex and age States Australia Canada France Germany Italy Japan Sweden

Men

Teenagers . ............. 61.9 59.8 49.7 31.1 62.1 35.8 25.2 53.7

20-24 ...................... 86.8 91.1 85.3 83.9 83.6 68.2 79.5 78.4

25-29 ......................

30-34 ........

} 95.9 } 97.4 } 96.4 96.5

99.1

93.0

98.1

93.5

98.3

96.9

98.1 | 93.7

35-39 ......................

40-44 ......................

} 96.3 J 97.4 j 97.3

99.0

98.3

98.7

98.4

98.1

97.2

98.1

)

| 95.0

45-49 ........................

50-54 ......................

} 93.0 J 94.9 } 94.6

97.3

94.3

96.7

93.9

95.2

90.7

[97.2 J94.3

55-59 ...................... 86.2 89.1 } 81.3

83.7 86.2 79.0 }86.8 J 32.7 60-64 ...................... 69.1 76.0 64.1 68.5 43.3

65 and o v e r............. 22.8 21.4 18.3 15.9 15.0 10.4 46.7 2 23.9

Women

Teenagers ................ 47.9 55.7 39.8 24.8 60.4 26.1 27.9 49.8

20-24 ...................... 61.2 61.9 62.5 68.7 67.0 42.0 67.0 67.6

25-29 ......................

30-34 ................... ...

} 50.2 | 43.6 }45.2

63.8

56.2

53.4

48.1

34.0

30.3

44.4

46.8 j 65.0

35-39 ....................... } 53.3 J 50.4 J 43.7

53.6 48.5 29.6 56.3

j 71.5 40-44 ................... ... 53.7 50.0 30.3

45-49 ...................... } 53.7 } 45.2 |42.9

54.8 50.7 29.6 >61.3 J 71.0

50-54 ...................... 53.5 46.5 25.8

55-59 ......................

60-64 ......................

47.4

34.2

30.5

16.4 ) 31.0 45.2

34.1

36.0

17.7

16.5

9.1 J44.5 } 46.3

65 and over . . . . . 8.9 3.4 4. 4 7.0 5.7 2.1 ‘16.9 27.4

11972 data for Italy and Germany. NOTE: Data are not adjusted to U.S. concepts.

2 Ages 65-74.

44

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 15. Age Structure of Labor Force Participation Rates, 1973

0

Teenagers

20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54

Age

55-59 60-64 65 and

over

0

Teenagers

20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54

Age

55-59 60-64 65 and

over

100

Percent of Population

in Labor Force

100

in 1974, and greater flexibility in working time have also

provided incentives for Swedish women to seek gainful

employment. Parenthood insurance provides that either a

mother or father may stay home up to 7 months after a

child’s birth and be reimbursed for 90 percent of his or her

pay.

Age structure o f participation rates

The age structure of participation rates differs greatly

between the sexes (table 14). Male participation rates

plotted by age groups display a bell shape in all countries,

with high rates during the prime working ages and then tapering off after age 50 as males enter retirement. Chart 15

shows the age structure of participation rates for three of

the countries, illustrating the bell shape. The growing importance of schooling and the increasing frequency of early

retirement, voluntary or otherwise, have resulted in a trend

toward lower participation rates at both ends of the age

spectrum.

In the case of women, the above phenomena are accompanied by conditions relating to women’s traditional

role in society. Generally speaking, after a first maximum

which occurs between 20 and 25 years of age, a fall in

economic activity rates occurs which is attributable to

marriage and the birth and raising of children. Subsequently, a number of women return to work. Sometime

in the 30’s the female activity rate begins to rise again and

reaches a second maximum in the 40’s which is, except in

Sweden, lower than the first maximum. In Sweden, about

68 percent of women in the 20-24 age group are economically active; this tapers off gradually to 65 percent in the 25-

34 age group, then rises to a second maximum of 71.5 percent in the 35-44 age bracket. Projections indicate that

Sweden is approaching a pattern of female participation by

age similar to that of men, with no drop in activity connected with the birth and bringing up of children. Chart 15

shows the characteristic M-shaped curve for female participation rates in two of the three countries shown. Sin

1973, the U.S. curve has changed from the M-shape shown

in the chart. The differential in participation rates between

the age groups 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 gradually narrowed,

and by 1976, participation rates were about the same for

both age groups.

Table 14 indicates a very high rate of participation

for older Japanese workers. Almost half of the men in

Japan 65 years old and over are still working. In the United

States, only about 1 in 5 men over 65 are working, and in

Germany about 1 out of every 6. A comparatively high proportion of older Japanese women are also working. The

45

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
prevalence of the work ethic in Japan partly accounts for

these high participation rates of older workers. Also, social

security benefits are very small and pensions are low or

nonexistent. Fifty-five is still the common retirement age

in Japan, but social security payments begin at age 60 and

lump-sum retirement payments are not enough to allow for

self-sufficiency until age 60. As a result, most workers who

are retired from their regular jobs at 55 continue at lower

paid jobs or go into self-employment out of financial necessity.

Cyclical trends in participation

In the short term, changes in participation rates can

incorporate a significant cyclical component. It is generally

assumed that the interaction between demand for and supply of labor may take two opposite forms: In the course of

a recession, dismissed workers or potential labor force entrants may either be inhibited from even seeking a new job

(“discouraged worker hypothesis”) or be stimulated by

sheer need to try harder for new sources of income (“additional worker hypothesis”). Econometric investigations

have usually found confirmation at the aggregate level of

the “discouraged worker hypothesis,” even though this may

only imply that the alternative hypothesis has less

weight.10

According to research by Dernburg and Strand, the

degree to which the two effects govern labor force participation depends upon the stage of the business cycle.11 An

initial decline in employment from a cyclical peak results

in large-scale discouragement and withdrawal from the

labor force. Subsequent declines in employment are met by

a smaller decline in labor force participation. As the period

of economic slack grows longer, pressure on additional

workers to enter the labor force builds up and this tends to

partially offset the discouragement effect. Because the

dominant effect is withdrawal from the labor force, the official unemployment statistics understate the magnitude of

the economic loss during periods of economic slack.12

The United States and Sweden are the only countries

studied which regularly collect data on discouraged workers.

In the United States, changes in the number of such workers have been consistent with cyclical changes in the demand for labor. Both the unemployment rate and the number of discouraged workers moved downward, though in

differing degrees, from 1967 to 1969, when unemployment

declined 5 percent and discouraged workers declined 22

percent; both series rose substantially from 1969 to 1971,

10 See Jacob Mincer, “Labor Force Participation and Unemployment: a Review of Recent Evidence,” in R. A. Gordon and M. S.

Gordon eds., Prosperity and Employment (New York, Wiley and

Sons, 1966).

11 Thomas Dernburg and Kenneth Strand, “Hidden Unemployment 1953-62: A Quantitative Analysis by Age and Sex,” American

Economic Review, March 1966, pp. 71-95.

when job prospects were poor; and both moved downward

again during 1972 and 1973 as the job market improved.

The drop in the U.S. labor force participation rate in 1971,

after a rise since 1964, was related to the sharp increase in

withdrawals from the labor force of discouraged workers.

The number of discouraged workers reached a recession

high of 1.2 million in the third quarter of 1975-one quarter

later than the unemployment peak—and the 1975 participation rate held steady at the 1974 level after rising in 1972

and 1973. After the peak, the number of discouraged

workers began moving downward fairly steadily through

the third quarter of 1976. However, as unemployment began to rise again, there was also an increase in the number

of discouraged workers to 1 million in the final quarter of

1976.

In Sweden, economic activity slowed down in 1967-

68, and both unemployment and the number of discouraged

workers reached decade highs. The labor force participation

rate dipped sharply in 1967. one of the few years in which

female economic activity declined. In 1968, the participation rate rose, possibly evidencing the “additional worker

hypothesis.” In 1970-71, when unemployment moved upward sharply, the number of discouraged workers actually

fell slightly and continued downward in 1972; participation

rates continued to rise. This trend may have been related

to the rapid expansion in government training and job creation programs in the early 1970’s which probably absorbed

many discouraged workers. During the international recession of 1974-75, Swedish unemployment remained low,

and participation rates for women rose sharply, while the

rates for men held steady. In contrast, male participation

rates declined in all the other countries during the recession.

The long-term trend in Italy is one of slowly declining overall participation rates. Cyclical trends,superimposed

upon this long-term trend, have occasionally caused sharper

than usual declines in participation. In 1963-66, when the

Italian economy turned downward and unemployment

rose, participation rates dipped sharply. As economic activity

moved upward, activity rates held steady in 1967 and declined only slightly until 1972 when another sharp drop

occurred. The latter drop was a lagged reaction to the

lengthy recession which began in early 1970. Whereas in

previous cycles the easing of the labor market was accompanied by a rapid decline in participation rates, the rates remained stable in the recession which began in 1974.

12

Ibid. Dernburg and Strand constructed a “potential” labor

force series for the United States which they used to recalculate the

unemployment rate including net cyclical withdrawals from the

labor force. Thus, for November 1962, when the official seasonally

adjusted unemployment rate was 5.8 percent, they calculated a

“manpower gap” unemployment rate of between 9.5 and 10.3 percent. Professor Alfred Telia of Georgetown University has also done

work in this area. See “The Relation of Labor Force to Employment,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, April 1974, pp. 454-

69.

46

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The data for Germany and Great Britain also suggest that participation rates tend to react, with certain

lags, to changes in the demand for labor. Participation

rates declined throughout most of the 1960-76 period in

Germany, but the sharpest drops occurred in 1967 and

1974, both years of recession for the economy. In Great

Britain, participation rates for 1960-66 held quite steadily

at about 61 percent, but then fell off to 59 percent by

1971 as unemployment rose. One noncyclical influence

which should be mentioned was the raising of the British

school-leaving age from 15 to 16 in 1973. Removal of the

15-year-olds from the 1973 data explains some of the increase in participation rates in 1973 since 15-year-olds had

a lower than average level of labor force activity.

Employment-population ratios also were sensitive to

cyclical fluctuations, but did not always move in the same

direction as participation rates. For example, in 1975, U.S.,

Canadian, Australian, Italian, and British participation rates

held steady or rose while employment-population ratios

declined. According to one hypothesis, this behavior in the

United States was attributable to the combination of inflation and unemployment which put severe financial pressure

on many families and induced an unusually large number of

family members to seek jobs.

47

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 5. Factors C ontributing to Differences in U nem ploym ent Levels

Unemployment rates in the United States have tended

to be appreciably higher than in most other industrial countries, even after adjustments are made to account for differences in definitions and survey methods. Although U.S. unemployment reached a 16-year low of 3.5 percent in 1969,

it was still well above the rates in Western Europe and

Japan. Explanations for the differences may be sought in

demographic, economic, legal, and social factors.

This chapter examines some of the factors which may

contribute to differences in unemployment levels among

the major industrial countries. Emphasis is placed on those

factors which help to explain the relatively high unemployment rates in the United States. The discussion updates and

expands upon the pioneering 1962 study by Myers and

Chandler prepared for the President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics.1 It will

be noted that, in many ways, the countries studied are

more alike today than they were in the early 1960’s. Nevertheless, significant differences do remain which help to explain international differences in unemployment rates.

Consideration is given first to demographic factors

such as the growth and composition of the labor force. Attention is also given to cyclical labor migrations, to seasonality, to income maintenance arrangements, to labor market

programs, and to differences in the employment situation

for young people. Finally, noneconomic factors such as

legal and social restraints against layoffs are considered.

The chapter is by no means a complete survey of all

the factors that influence comparative levels of unemployment rates. Such complex questions as the form of economic

organization (i.e., free enterprise, socialism, etc.) and the

level of wages in relation to the supply of, and demand for,

labor have been deliberately excluded. Similarly, the fiscal

and monetary policies chosen by the various governments

are not taken into consideration. Differences in occupational, industrial, and regional supply-demand imbalances

(i.e., structural unemployment) have also been excluded.

Treatment of such topics is beyond the scope of this report.

However, it should be noted that some of these excluded

topics could be very significant factors in explaining differences in unemployment levels.

It is fairly easy to identify many of the principal

causes contributing to differences in unemployment rates,

but it is much more difficult to appraise their relative im1 President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Measuring Employ men te n d Unemployment, appendix A (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962).

portance. To present such a quantitative appraisal would

require a study in considerable depth. Comparatively low

unemployment rates in Western Europe and Japan cannot

be attributed solely to any one of the topics discussed below. They are rather the cumulative effect of a number of

factors which in combination have gradually enabled some

national economies to provide jobs for almost all persons

seeking work.

Labor force growth

It is commonly suggested that the rapid growth of the

labor force in the United States has greatly increased the

difficulty of maintaining full employment. Growth of the

U.S. civilian labor force alone called for about 25 million

new jobs between 1959 and 1976 if the unemployment rate

were not to rise above the 1959 level of 5.5 percent. The

economy generated 23 million new jobs, however, and the

unemployment rate rose to 7.7 percent in 1976. Of course,

some of this shortfall is attributable to cyclical factors.2

The lower unemployment rates of the European countries

and Japan from 1960 onward were achieved under conditions of slow growth or decline of the labor force. Indeed,

it is often overlooked that these countries created relatively

fewer net new jobs than did the countries with high unemployment rates-the United States and Canada.

The Canadian labor force grew at an annual rate of

3.2 percent, higher than the rate of increase in any other

country (table 15). Australian work force growth, at 2.4

percent annually since 1964, was also rapid. The rate of

growth of the U.S. labor force, at 2 percent, was much

higher than that for the European countries and Japan. The

labor force grew at annual rates of 1 percent or less in

France, Great Britain, and Sweden. In Germany, the labor

force decreased slowly but would have declined faster if

not for the rapid influx of foreign workers since 1960.

The labor force excluding foreign workers in Germany

declined by 7 percent between 1960 and 1975, while the

number of foreign workers rose about sevenfold. Italy’s

work force declined by 0.4 percent a year. These very low

rates of labor force increase in European countries may

have aided in maintaining low levels of unemployment. In

fact, labor shortages developed during the 1960’s in several

2 Real gross national product rose by 6 percent over the preceding year in 1959 and by 6.1 percent in 1976; both years were preceded by economic downturns. However, the 1974-75 recession was

steeper and longer lasting than the 1957-58 downturn.

48

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 15. Growth rates of population, labor force, and

employment, 1960-76

Country

Civilian

working-age

population

Civilian

labor

force

Employment

United States . . . 1.7 2.0 1.9

Canada ................... 2.4 3.2 3.1

Australia1 ..... 2.0 2.4 2.2

Japan ................... 1.7 1.3 1.2

France................... 1.2 1.1 .9

Germany ............. .7 -.1 -.2

Great Britain . . . .3 .2 .1

I t a l y ...................... .8 -.4 -.4

Sweden . . . . . . .7 .8 .8

11964-76.

21961-76.

NOTE: Percent changes computed from the least squares trend

of the logarithms of the index numbers.

countries—notably Germany and Japan—as the supply of

labor could not keep up with demand.

Population growth and trends in participation rates

are factors which underlie the different trends in the labor

force among the major industrial countries. Since 1960, the

civilian population of working age has grown fastest in

Canada, followed by Australia, the United States, Japan,

and France (table 15). Population growth was under 1 percent a year in Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Sweden.

Labor force participation rates have been rising in the

United States, Australia, Canada, and Sweden, while remaining steady in Great Britain and declining in the other

countries. (See chapter 4.)

The relatively rapid growth in working-age population

and rising participation rates led to the relatively high rates

of labor force growth in the United States, Australia, and

Canada. Germany, Great Britain, and Italy had low rates of

population growth and declining or steady participation

rates; in these countries, the labor force grew very slowly or

declined. For Japan, population growth was fairly strong

but labor force growth was held down by a sharp drop in

participation rates.

A major reason for the rapid increase in the U.S.

working-age population and labor force compared to many

European countries was this country’s unusually high binh

rate in the early postwar years. These children began entering the labor force in the latter 1960’s. Thus, in 1967, some

3.8 million Americans turned 21, nearly 1 million more

than a year earlier. The number reaching 21 remained close

to 3.8 million until 1975 and then began to push above 4

million. In most other industrial countries, in contrast, the

ravages of World War II precluded any prompt postwar return to normal family life. Consequently, there were no

comparable postwar baby booms, and there was no comparable stream of young persons pouring into the work

force.

Underlying long-term trends in participation rates are

such factors as trends toward longer years of schooling,

early retirement, and changing attitudes toward the role

of women. In the United States, a dramatic increase in participation rates for women occurred in the 1960-76 period.

In contrast, Japan, Germany, and Italy had declining female

activity rates. (See chapter 4.)

Labor force composition

Differences in the composition of the labor force

among the major industrial countries are important in an

investigation of why international unemployment rates

differ, since certain groups have been more prone to unemployment than others. Hence, if a country has a higher proportion of its labor force in such groups, its overall unemployment rate should tend to be higher. Differences in composition by sex, age, economic sector, and economic status

(i.e.., self-employed, wage earner, or unpaid family worker)

are examined here.

Age and sex composition. In general, women enter and

leave the work force more frequently than adult men and

women and younger workers change jobs more frequently,

encountering more spells of unemployment in the course of

these transitions than workers with more permanent job

attachments. Another factor that tends to increase the unemployment rate of married women is the migration of

families who generally move where the husband’s job

opportunities are better.3 Also, women and younger workers

are more vulnerable to layoffs than adult men, because on

average they do not have as many years of work experience.

On the other hand, women and teenagers tend to work in

occupations and industries which are not subject to sharp

cyclical fluctuations. Women, for example, are more

likely to be employed in white-collar jobs and in service

industries where unemployment fluctuates less over the

business cycle. In addition, the slower rate of entry of

women and teenagers into the labor force during a recession

narrows the age and sex differential in the U.S. unemployment rate.

In chapter 3 comparative data were presented on

unemployment by age and sex. These figures indicated that

women in most countries have higher unemployment rates

than men. Female rates are about the same as male rates

only in Great Britain and Japan. Teenagers have relatively

high jobless rates in all countries. Thus, it is relevant to consider the trends in the proportion of the labor force

accounted for by women and teenagers.

A significant increase in the proportion of women

and teenagers in the labor force has been singled out as one

of the reasons for the worsening unemployment situation

3 In the United States in 1970, married women age 25 to 34 who

had moved to a different county within the year had an unemployment rate of 11 percent, compared to 5 percent for nonmigrants.

Among married men of the same age group, the rates were 4.8 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively.

49

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 16. Women and teenagers in the labor force, 1960,1971,1975, and 1976

Country

Women1 Teenagers2

As percent of labor force Labor force

growth rate,

1960-76

As percent of labor force Labor force

growth rate,

1971 1975 1976 1960 1971 1975 1976 1960-761960

United States . . 33 38 40 41 3.1 7 9 10 10 3.9

Canada ................ 3 27 34 37 37 5.2 3 9 10 12 11 4.1

Australia............. 4 29 32 35 35 44.1 4 14 12 12 12 4 .7

Japan ................ 40 39 37 37 .6 10 5 3 3 “ 6.7

France ................ 5 36 38 38 39 51.7 5 8 6 5 (6 ) 5~ 1 .6

Germany . . . . 38 36 38 38 - .1 11 8 8 9 ~ 1.2

Great Britain . . 34 37 39 39 1.3 711 9 8 8 7~ 1.7

I t a l y ................... 31 28 30 30 - .4 12 8 7 (6 ) 8-4 .5

S w e d e n ............. 735 40 43 43 72.2 7 9 6 6 6 7“ 1.5

1 All working ages.

216- to 19-year-olds in the United States, France, and Sweden; 15- to 19-year-olds in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan;

14- to 19-year-olds in Italy. Data for Great Britain are for 15- to

19-year-olds in 1960 and 1971 and 16- to 19-year-olds in 1975

and 1976.

3 Estimate.

4

1965 for proportion; 1965-76 for growth rate.

51963 for proportion; 1963-75 or -76 for growth rate.

°N ot available.

71961 for proportion; 1961-76 for growth rate.

*1960-75.

NOTE: Data have been adjusted to U.S. concepts. Growth

rates (percent per year) based on compound rate of change.

in the United States in the 1970’s. Women grew from onethird of the U.S. labor force in 1960 to 41 percent in 1976,

while 16- to 19-year-olds increased their share from 7 to 10

percent. The U.S. economy has not fully absorbed these

groups, and unemployment rates for women and teenagers

have worsened compared with the national average. For example, the overall unemployment rate was about 5.6 percent in both 1960 and 1974; female unemployment was

5.9 percent in 1960 and 6.7 percent in 1974; teenage unemployment was 14.7 percent and 18.2 percent, respectively. In contrast, the jobless rate for males 20 years of

age and over dropped from 4.7 percent to 3.8 percent over

the same period.

Table 16 shows that the United States has had a

comparatively large increase in the female work force during the period since 1960. Only Canada and Australia

(1965-76) have had more rapid increases. In all of these

countries, the strong expansion of the service sector, with

jobs traditionally held by women, had an important effect.

Other underlying factors are noted in chapter 4. In 1976,

Sweden, which has done much to encourage women to

work, had the highest proportion of women in its labor

force. The United States ranked second, followed closely

by France, Germany, and Great Britain. Italy had, by far,

the lowest proportion of women. These rankings differed

markedly from the situation in 1960, when five of the nine

countries had higher proportions of women in the work

force than the United States. At that time, Japan ranked

first, and Germany was second. Canada ranked last, with

women constituting only about one-quarter of the labor

force.

Thus, the United States has had a relatively high and

growing proportion of women in the labor force. Sweden

has maintained low overall unemployment rates even with

a large and growing female component. Female unemployment rates in Sweden, although higher than male rates, are

quite low when compared with most of the other countries.

Italy has had both a low level and a declining trend in the

female labor force. This has probably helped to keep unemployment down, since female unemployment rates have

been 50 to 60 percent higher than the male rates in recent

years. France and Germany had significantly higher proportions of women in their labor forces in 1960 than the United

States, but had much lower levels of unemployment compared with the United States.

Between 1960 and 1970, the United States had the

fastest growth in the teenage labor force; for the entire

1960-76 period, Canada had the sharpest increase because

of extremely rapid growth in the 1970’s. In all of the

European countries and Japan, the teenage labor force declined between 1960 and 1976 (table 16).

In 1976, teenagers constituted 10 percent of the labor

force in the United States; this proportion was exceeded

only in Australia and Canada (table 16).4 Japan, France,

and Sweden have very low proportions of teenagers in the

labor force (3 to 6 percent) and this has helped to keep

overall unemployment down in those countries. However,

in 1960 all the other countries had higher proportions of

teenagers in their labor force than the United States and

were able to maintain much lower overall levels of unemployment, except for Canada.

Canada and the United States were the only countries where the proportion of teenagers in the labor force

It should be noted that the proportion of teenagers in the labor

force may be affected by the lower age limit used in defining teenagers (footnote 2, table 16). These age limits have been adapted to

the age at which compulsory schooling ends, which varies from age

14 to 16. If 15-year-olds were excluded from the Australian and

Canadian labor forces, for example, the proportion of teenagers

would probably be lowered closer to the level in the United States,

where teenagers comprise persons age 16 to 19.

50

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
rose between 1960 and 1975. Basically, there are two

reasons for the increases in the teenage labor forces in both

countries. As mentioned earlier, the sharp increase in birth

rates in the 1950’s resulted in rapid growth of the teenage

population beginning in the second half of the 1960’s.

Second, participation rates of young persons have risen significantly. In most of the other countries studied, birth

rates did not rise significantly in the 1950’s and participation rates have generally fallen for teenagers with the spread

of higher education.

On balance, the overall effect of the demographic

composition of the U.S. labor force may be to marginally

increase its aggregate unemployment rate compared with

some other countries. The high and growing proportion of

both women and teenagers in the U.S. labor force has had

an upward influence on unemployment rates. This has also

been the case in Canada. In most of the other countries the

female and teenage components of the work force are not

as large and have either declined or increased less rapidly.

Industry and economic status. The industrial composition

of the labor force and the economic status of workers (i.e.,

as self-employed, wage earner, or unpaid family worker) are

factors of interest since workers in certain sectors of the

economy and workers of wage earner status are more often

unemployed than others.

In many foreign countries—Japan and Italy are the

best examples—small, family-owned businesses are found

more frequently than in this country. The farms, small

factories, and commercial establishments owned and operated by family members have provided jobs and a substantial measure of protection from unemployment for a large

segment of the labor force. In such enterprises unemployment is virtually nonexistent, though substantial underemployment and shrinkage of income may occur from time

to time. Furthermore, in countries where this form of

business organization plays a significant role, there is more

chance that a family member who loses his wage or salary

job will return to working in the family business and thus

not be counted as unemployed. In the United States, on

the other hand, the economies of scale that can be realized

in a large and fairly homogeneous sales market have been

factors encouraging a consolidation of business enterprises,

so that self-employment and family operations occur less

frequently and the risk of unemployment is increased.

Unemployment is much less frequently associated

wit.li agriculture than with industry, partly because agriculture is less susceptible to cyclical change, but chiefly because a. high proportion of workers in agriculture are selfemployed or unpaid family workers, The following tabulation shows the proportion of the employed population engaged in agriculture in 1960 and 1976:

1960 1976

United States . . ........ ................... . 8.5 3.9

........ 13.3 5.9 Australia 6,2

Japan ...................... .......................... 29.5 11.9

France............................................ ......................... 22.4 10.9

Germany ...................... ... . . . . . .................... 13.6 7.0

Great Britain ................................ ...................... 4.1 2.6

Italy . . . . . ......................................................... 32.6 15.4

Sweden ......................................... 6.2

These figures indicate that Italy, Japan, and France

had the highest proportions of workers generally not susceptible to being counted as unemployed. Great Britain and

the United States had the lowest proportions, However, it

should be noted that the countries with the highest proportions experienced a high rate of displacement from the agricultural sector in the period under review and have therefore

had the added problem of providing other jobs for the displaced farm workers.

The following tabulation shows the 1974 proportion

of employment made up by wage and salary earners in the

nine countries:

United S tates.................. 90.4

Canada................... 88.7

Australia............................................ 85.8

Japan ............................................................. 69.3

France.............................................................. 80.6

Germany ..................................................................... 83.9

Great B r ita in ............................................ 92.0

I t a l y .................................. 71.5

Sweden ............................................................................................... 91.0

The United States has a higher proportion of wage

and salary workers than all the other countries except Great

Britain and Sweden. The small proportion of agricultural

workers discussed above helps to explain this, but other

factors such as the prevalence of large-scale operations in

the United States play a role. Japan, Italy, and France had

much lower proportions of wage and salary workers than

the other countries and, therefore, had a significant group

of workers who might be underemployed but who are seldom totally unemployed. Some industrial countries, notably Sweden, have been able to maintain very low rates of

unemployment despite a realtively high proportion of wage

and salary workers.

Labor migration

The volume of migration in the Western European

countries has tended to fluctuate with the economic situation, Foreign nationals have flowed into the Northern

European countries when demand is high and have left

when it is low, without seriously affecting unemployment

levels in the host country. This flexibility of labor supply,

particularly in France, Germany, and Switzerland, has acted

as a cyclical shock absorber, helping to keep unemployment

rates low during recessions, although in 1974-75 the outflow was not as great as in past recessions. These cyclical

flows of “guestworkers” have no precise counterpart in the

United States and are one of the factors explaining why unemployment rates in some Western European countries

have been lower than in this country.

51

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Massive migratory movements of workers within

Europe have occurred within the past two decades. In contrast to the involuntary and permanent migration which

marked the immediate postwar decade, European migration

since 1955 has been mostly voluntary and temporary. The

first impetus to such migrations was the formation of the

European Community (EC) in 1957 and its rules permitting

the free movement of labor across the borders of member

states. Subsequently, rapid economic growth in the Northern

European countries attracted many migrant workers from

outside the EC, mainly from the poorer Mediterranean

countries such as Turkey, Greece, and Spain. In the early

1960’s, the influx of migrants became very large as Northern Europe’s demand for labor far outstripped the domestic

supply.

Workers migrating from one EC country to another

are assured equal social protection with nationals, reception

facilities covering training and linguistic studies, and housing, as well as an increasing participation in the political and

socioeconomic life of the host country. Migrants from outside the EC, having no official status under Community

law, enter the Community under conditions set forth in bilateral agreements between member states and the countries

of origin. These agreements guarantee legal migrants some

social security protection in the Community, but usually

less than local citizens receive.

The flow of migrant labor from Mediterranean countries to the north increased steadily until the 1966-67 recession, when many foreign workers were obliged to return

home because of growing unemployment in Northern Europe. After the recession, the movement of foreign workers

to the north resumed.

Measures to limit considerably, or stop, the influx of

migrants by the labor-receiving countries led to a diminution

Table 17. Foreign workers in Germany, 1960 and 1965-76

Year

Employed

foreign workers

Unemployed

foreign workers1

Number

(thousands)

Percent of

labor force

Number

(thousands)

Percent of

foreign

labor force

1960 ................ 281 1.1 (2 ) (2)

1965 ................ 1,119 4.3 2 .2

1966 ................ 1,243 4.7 4 3

1967 ................ 1,014 3.9 15 1.5

1968 ................ 1,019 4.0 5 .5

1969 ................ 1,366 5.3 3 .2

1970 ................ 1,807 6.9 4 .2

1 9 7 1 ................ 2,128 8.1 11 .5

1972 ................ 2,285 8.7 16 .7

1973 ................ 2,595 9.8 19 .7

1974 ................ 2,446 9.3 69 2.7

1975 ................ 2,034 7.9 151 6.9

1976 (June) . . 1,937 7.6 90 4.4

1 Registered unemployed.

2 Not available.

SOURCE: Hauptergebnisse der Arbeits-und Sozialstatistik

(Bonn, Der Bundesminister fur Arbeit und Soziaiordnung, various

issues).

of the cyclical outflow of migrants in the 1974-75 recession. 

Many foreign workers remained in the host countries because they feared they would not be able to reenter under

the newly restrictive immigration policies. Another factor

was that increased unemployment benefits in industrialized countries exceeded any wage the migrants could hope

to receive at home. This growing tendency for unemployed

foreign workers to remain in the Northern European countries contributed to the sharp rise in unemployment rates

recorded in most of these countries during the recent recession. This contrasts with the situation in the European

recession of 1966-67, when there was a sharp outflow of

foreign workers.5 Tabic 17 shows the number of foreign

workers employed and unemployed in Germany over the

period since 1960. Unemployment of foreign workers rose

from 0.3 to 1.5 percent from 1966 to 1967, but was much

higher in the 1974-75 recession, reaching a peak of 6.9 percent in 1975. The annual figures in the table conceal the

fact that between mid-1966 and early 1968, over 30 percent of the foreign labor force left the country. Between

mid-1973 and mid-1974 the drop was only 12 percent, but

as the recession continued foreign workers left in increasing

numbers.

Italy was a major labor-exporting country during the

1960’s and early 1970’s. However, the 1974-75 recession

caused many Italians to return home, and Italy had a positive migratory balance. For example, in 1974 some 85,000

workers left Italy for Germany, while 120,000 returned

home from that country. Even with this return flow, there

were still about 1 million Italians working abroad in 1975,

most of them in Germany, Switzerland, and France.

Almost all Northern European countries have placed

bans on new immigration. These restrictions were related to

the social and political problems caused by migration as

well as the 1973 energy crisis and subsequent recession.

With rules of the European Community providing for a free

flow of workers from one member country to another, efforts to hold down the flow of migrants are aimed at countries that do not belong to the group of nine nations. About

three-quarters of the foreign workers in European Community countries are from outside the Community. Germany banned recruitment of foreign labor from outside the

Common Market in November 1973; Belgium and Fiance

followed with bans in 1974. In the Scandinavian countries,

there is a partial ban against migratory flows from outside

the free Nordic market. In Switzerland, a policy of increasing restriction on the entry of foreign workers began well

before the recent recession.

Uniform statistics on migrant workers in Western

Europe are not available, chiefly because nearly all countries use different methods of classifying foreign workers,

Some countries include seasonal workers in their reporting, while others do not. Also, h is difficult to obtain

5 See “Effects of Recession on Immigrant Labor,** OECD Observer, June 1972, pp. 15-18,

52

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 18. Estimated number of foreign workers by country of immigration and emigration, 1975

Country of

Country 0? '''^ TM mi9ration

emigration

Austria Belgium1 France2 Germany3

Netherlands Sweden Switzerland4

United

Kingdom 1

A lgeria................................ __ 3,000 420,000 2,000 _ 1 200 _ 500

Austria......................... ... . - - - 78,000 - - 21,000 -

Finland ............................. - - - - - 103,000 - -

Greece ....................................... — 8,000 5,000 212,000 2,000 8,000 - 2,500

Italy ..... .......................

ro

o

oo85,000 210,000 318,000 10,000 2,500 281,000 56,500

Morocco .......... - 60,000 165,000 1 18,000 28,000 500 - 1,000

Portuqal ................................... - 3,000 430,000 70,000 5,000 1,000 4,000 4,000

Spain........................................... - 30,000 250,000 132,000 18,000 2,000 72,000 15,500

Tunisia ....................................... - — 90,000 1 15,000 1,000 200 - -

T u rkey................... 26,200 10,000 35,000 582,000 38,000 4,000 16,000 1,500

Yugoslavia ........ 136,000 3,000 60,000 436,000 10,000 23,000 24,000 3,500

Other ................................ 21,000 76,000 235,000 328,000 104,000 60,000 135,000 690,000

T o ta l................................ 185,000 278,000 1,900,000 2,171,000 216,000 204,000 553,000 775,000

Percent of labor force . . 6.1 7.1 8.7 8.4 4.6 5.0 18.8 3.1

1 Estimates for 1974.

2Excludes 124,000 seasonal workers.

3 Data for September 1975, includes unemployed foreign

workers.

4 Excludes 86,000 seasonal workers and 85,000 foreign workers

who commute daily across international borders.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, SOPEMI (Continuous Reporting System on Migration),

1976 report.

figures on the number of daily international commuters

who work in France, for example, but actually live in

Spain or Belgium. The free movement of Common Market

migrants into member states makes it difficult to get an

accurate count of border crossings. Further problems in

measuring the number of foreign workers in Western

European countries are created by illegal immigration

and by tourists who enter a country and stay to take

temporary employment.

Thus, the number of migrant workers currently in

the Western European countries is not accurately known.

However, an idea of the magnitude involved can be gained

from statistics from a continuous reporting system set up

by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1973.6 Table 18 presents data from

the OECD system by country of immigration and emigration in 1975. The table shows that foreign workers represent about 19 percent of the Swiss labor force; 8 to 9 percent of the German and French work forces; about 6 to 7

percent in Austria and Belgium; 4 to 5 percent in the

Netherlands and Sweden; and 3 percent in the United Kingdom. Prior to the recession, foreign workers made up

greater proportions of the labor force-25 percent in

Switzerland and around 10 percent in Germany and France.

The figures in table 18 include participants in the free

movement of labor within the European Community countries.

As the term “guestworker” implies, the host countries of Western Europe have tended to regard the foreign

workers as transient. Legal frameworks discourage migrants

6 See 4Up-To-Date Information on Migration through ‘SOPEMI,’ ”

OECD Observer, February 1974, pp. 3940.

from permanently settling in these countries.7 Also, with

some exceptions, the migrants are not looking for a new

home. They want jobs and money which they can send

home or take with them when they leave after a few years.

The “guestworker” phenomenon of these countries has no

exact counterpart in the United States, Australia, Canada,

Sweden, and Great Britain. These immigrant-receiving

countries have traditionally taken the position that those

who arrive from abroad to work may also become citizens;

the legally arriving foreign worker, in short, has usually

been granted immigrant status. These countries do not define their foreign populations as “migrants” or “guestworkers” but as “immigrants.”

There has been a growing influx of illegal migrants

in Western European countries since the virtual halt in

“guestworker” hiring instituted during the 1974-75 recession. Such persons either cross international borders illegally or enter legally as visitors or students and remain

to work without a permit. The European Community has

estimated that there are about 600,000 illegal aliens working in member countries.8 German government authorities

estimate that about 200,000 illegal foreign nationals are

working in that country.9 In 1976, Germany passed a law

providing for prison terms and larger fines for the illegal

7

For example, in many countries there are work permits tying

workers to certain jobs, other restrictions on job mobility, requirements for renewal of work and residence permits, and rules inhibiting the reunion of families.

8“Illegal Immigrants,” The Economist, Nov. 13, 1976, p. 68.

9 Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany (Washington,

D.C.), What’s New in Labor and Social Policy? January/February

1976, pp. 12-14.

53

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
recruitment and employment of foreign workers. In addition, the Commission of the European Communities has

before it a proposal for a harmonized policy on illegal

immigration.

In the United States, illegal aliens have also become

a growing problem. Immigration officials place the number

of illegals at between 7 and 12 million persons (including

family members).10 A Cabinet-level Presidential committee

reported in 1976 that illegal aliens have become so numerous that those apprehended annually are almost double the

number of foreign citizens entering the United States

legally.11

Seasonality

Unemployment statistics, like many other economic

series, reflect in part a regularly recurring seasonal movement which can be estimated on the basis of past experience.

Seasonal adjustment procedures make allowances for

changes in average climatic conditions and institutional

arrangements during the year such as the influx of young

persons into the labor market at the end of the school term.

Seasonality plays a more important role in some

countries than in others. For instance, the unusually long

and severe winters in Canada cause higher average levels of

unemployment. One would also expect very large seasonal

swings related to the winter in Sweden, but this has been

mitigated as a result of massive government programs to

stimulate winter employment. In the United States, seasonal

variations explain about 90 percent of the month-to-month

variance in the unemployment figures, on average, over the

year. In construction alone, one study estimated that

seasonal layoffs represented about 38 percent of all unemployment.12

From its low point in February or March to its peak

in August, the U.S. contract construction industry characteristically has a massive upswing in employment. The magnitude of these seasonal swings is compared with other

countries in table 19. This table indicates that the United

States and Canada have the sharpest seasonal changes in

construction employment. Seasonal fluctuations were the

mildest in Italy and were also quite small in France, Great

Britain, and Australia. Germany and Sweden were in the

middle range.

European efforts to better utilize manpower during

10 Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., “Mexican Workers in the United States

Labor Market: A Contemporary Dilemma,” International Labour

Review, November 1975, p. 352.

11 Immigration: Need to Reassess U.S. Policy, Departments of

Justice and State: report to the Congress, 1976. Also, see “Illegal

Alien Study Urges Rethinking on Immigration,” The Washington

Post, Jan. 9, 1977, p. 1.

12Employment and Training Report o f the President, 1976, p.

62. See also Robert J. Myers and Sol Swerdloff, “Seasonality and

Construction,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1967, p. 1.

Table 19. Construction industry: Range of indexes of

employment, 1965 and 1975

(Average employment for each year = 100)

Country

1965 1975

Quarterly Monthly Quarterly Monthly

United States . . 87-109 85-111 94-106 92-107

Australia............. 98-101 (1 ) 97-103 (1 )

Canada ................ 83-114 81-116 8 6 -111 8 6 -112

France................ 98-101 (1 ) 97-102 (1 )

Germany .... 94-104 92-104 96-102 93-103

Great Britain . . 98-102 97-103 99-101 98-101

Italy ....... 99-101 (1 ) 99-101 (1 )

S w e d e n ............. 91-107 91-107 98-102 95-107

1 Not available.

NOTE: Quarterly data are 3-month averages except for Australia (February, May, August, and November), France (March,

June, September, and December), and Italy (January, April, July,

and October).

the winter months have helped to hold down seasonal unemployment in construction, and Canada has waged an

aggressive campaign to reduce seasonality in construction.

Similar goals were an objective of the National Commission

on Construction Labor, created in the United States in

1969. The commission has explored ways to stabilize labor

supplies, partly by encouraging the continuance of construction projects during the winter months.

Low temperatures, frozen ground, snow, rain, and

mud impede outdoor construction during the winter. Over

the years, continuing technological advances have made it

possible to overcome many of these obstacles. American

scientists and engineers have developed materials and techniques to permit winter construction. Such methods, although widely known, are not widely used. Canada, with

winter temperatures well below freezing, has made great

strides in all types of construction work through the

year.13 During the past decade, Canada has made wide use

of polyethylene wind barriers, interior heating units, coldresistant concrete, and other materials which allow for

year-round building. Experience throughout Europe—particularly in Scandinavia—confirms the technical feasibility

of construction in extreme cold.14

An impediment to increased winter construction in

the United States is the additional cost. Special protective

shelter and protective clothing for workers may have to be

provided. But when the difficulties and costs of winter

operation are weighed against the costs of halting operations, the balance is often in favor of winter construction

13 See Economic Council of Canada, Manpower in Construction

(Ottawa, 1975) and Toward More Stable Growth in Construction

(Ottawa, 1974).

14<-Testimony of James J, Reynolds, Under Secretary of Labor, on

“Seasonal Unemployment in the Construction Industry,” Hearings

before the Select Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 90th Congress, Second

Session, on HR 15990, July 15, 1968, p.5

54

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The cost savings to the economy become particularly notable when the direct and indirect savings in reduced unemployment are considered. The Department o f Labor has

estimated that up to a 7-percent increase in winter construction costs will be offset by a decrease in unemployment insurance outlays.15

Experience in other countries. Other industrialized countries began working on the diminution o f seasonality o f

construction employment sooner than the United States.

These steps have been particularly pronounced since the

end of World War II. Two major weapons against winter

unemployment have been used by foreign policy makers:

compensatory employment and compensatory income

policies.16 Compensatory income policies will be discussed in the section on income maintenance measures.

Compensatory employment policies attempt to reduce seasonal unemployment in construction through programming of regular public works projects, adoption o f

emergency public works programs, stimulation o f the private construction sector, and scheduling o f private projects.

Several Western European countries require all public construction to take place either on a year-round basis

or to be concentrated during the winter months. In Germany, for example, a government directive earmarks 30

percent o f all Federal construction appropriations for use

between November and March. In Canada and Great Britain, administrative budget review is required to assure

that the maximum amount o f winter employment is obtained, and in many countries there are subsidies for winter

housing construction.

Sweden has a direct and comprehensive approach to

the full utilization o f the construction labor force. Construction scheduling, carried out through the issuance o f

permits, is based upon detailed appraisals o f local requirements and resources which are integrated into a national

program. Seasonal demand is leveled o ff in the peak season

by issuing building permits which require work to begin in

November, and often to be completed by April.

In the United States, public facilities account for

roughly one-third o f total construction spending, but the

ratio is approximately one-half in Great Britain and France.

In Sweden, over 90 percent o f all housing is built with state

loans. In addition, publicly owned and controlled industries

occupy an important role in the industrial structure o f

many Western European countries and thereby introduce

15Ibid., p. 6.

16For a more detailed description of these programs, see E. Jay

Howenstine, “Programs for Providing Winter Jobs in Construction,”

Monthly Labor Review, February 1971, pp. 24-32,and Compensatory Employment Programmes: An International Comparison o f

Their Role in Economic Stabilization and Growth (Paris, OECD,

1969); also Jan Wittrock, Reducing Seasonal Unemployment in the

Construction Industry (Paris, OECD, 1967).

an important stabilization potential in the industrial construction sector. Thus, the governments o f these countries

can exercise a great deal o f control over seasonal fluctuations through the timing o f construction projects.

The results o f seasonal stabilization measures have

been fairly impressive. In Sweden, fluctuations in employment in the controlled building sector have narrowed considerably. Seasonal stabilization programs in Germany have

virtually abolished mass dismissals by medium- and largesized firms. Subsidies for winter housing construction in

Canada have virtually eliminated seasonality in homebuilding.

The presence o f a large number o f foreign workers in

the construction labor force o f many European countries

offers another solution to seasonality in the host country.

In Austria, France, and Switzerland, such workers are

issued temporary work permits which require them to return home before the Christmas season. New temporary

permits are then issued the following spring. This policy

exports the problem o f seasonal unemployment to the

workers’ country o f origin.

Income maintenance arrangements

Unemployment insurance and such income maintenance programs as short-time payments, “bad weather”

compensation, and early retirement benefits may have an

important impact on unemployment. Unemployment benefits may encourage workers to remain unemployed longer,

while the other income maintenance measures may serve

to reduce unemployment.

High levels o f unemployment benefits payable for

long periods o f time allow workers to remain unemployed

longer while they seek work with skill requirements and

pay similar to those o f their previous jobs. A major question

has been whether high levels of unemployment benefits

discourage efforts to find work quickly, thereby prolonging unemployment. Several research studies during the

last few years have addressed this question.17

1 7 Stephen T. Marston, ‘The Impact of Unemployment Insurance

on Job Search,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, No. 1,

1975 (The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.); Martin S. Feldstein, “Lowering the Permanent Rate of Unemployment,” a study

prepared for the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the

United States, Sept. 18, 1973, and “Unemployment Insurance:

Time for Reform,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1975, pp.

51-61; H.G. Grubel, D. Maki, and S. Sax, “Real and Insurance-Induced Unemployment in Canada,” Canadian Journal o f Economics,

May 1975, p. 174-91; C. Green and J. M. Cousineau, Unemployment

in Canada: The Impact o f Unemployment Insurance (Ottawa,

Economic Council of Canada, 1976); N. Swan, P. Mac Rae, and C.

Steinberg, Income Maintenance Programs: Their Effect on Labour

Supply and Aggregate Demand in the Maritimes (Ottawa, Economic

Council of Canada, 1976); P. A. Cook, G. V. Jump, C. D. Hodgins,

and C. J. Szabo, Economic Impact o f Selected Government Programs Directed Toward the Labor Market (Ottawa, Economic Council of Canada, 1976); J. S. Cubbin and K. Foley, ‘The Extent of

Benefit-Induced Unemployment in Great Britain: Some New Evidence,” Oxford Economic Papers, March 1977, pp. 128-40.

55

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
For example, three reports recently released under

the auspices of the Economic Council of Canada investigate various aspects o f the impact o f unemployment insurance benefits on the rate o f unemployment in Canada.18

In 1971, a new unemployment insurance (UI) act took

effect in Canada, extending coverage, increasing the maximum weekly benefit and the ratio o f payments to former

earnings, and establishing more liberal eligibility requirements. Subsequently, seasonally adjusted unemployment

rose despite an increasing number o f vacancies. While the

authors of the studies generally agree that these events were

caused by the 1971 revisions, each study focuses on a particular dimension o f the relationship. Green and Cousineau

were primarily concerned with the impact on the unemployed segment of the labor supply. They found that the

more generous Ul benefits strengthened the incentive to

remain or become unemployed, increasing the unemployment rate from 1 to 1.5 percentage points on this account

alone. Higher Ul benefits were found to facilitate a more

selective job search than would have been possible prior to

1971. However, other factors may have also been operating,

as noted in the study by Swan, MacRae, and Steinberg.

They confined their research to one region—the Maritime

Provinces—and concentrated on the effects o f UI on employment rather than unemployment. They observed increasing participation rates and employment levels for

women and young people as a result of the 1971 act.

Finally, Cook, Jump, Hodgins, and Szabo limited their

study to the macroeconomic impact o f the revised act.

They found the new act was clearly expansionary, since

the unemployed were assured o f greater purchasing power

than they could otherwise have expected.

Some countries have instituted mechanisms to counter

the incentive to stay idle and live off unemployment checks.

Japan’s approach is to pay workers a bonus when they go

back to work, with the size o f the bonus determined by

the amount of time the worker could have continued to

collect benefits. France and Great Britain try a different

approach. They scale down the size of the unemployment

benefit the longer it is paid.

In some countries, the systems o f benefit payments

to workers placed on reduced workweeks provide a mechanism for employers to keep workers partially employed

rather than laying them off outright when economic activity declines. Such workers continue to be classified as

employed rather than unemployed. Construction workers

receiving “bad weather” compensation are also not regarded

as unemployed. Finally, financial inducements toward early

retirement may keep a number of persons out o f the labor

force who might otherwise have been looking for work.

Unemployment insurance. An international comparison of

unemployment insurance systems indicates that most countries now have fairly broad coverage o f the labor force, long

i s lbid.

Table 20. Unemployment insurance systems, mid-1975

Country

Percent of

labor force

covered1

Required

weeks

employed

preceding

unemployment

Waiting

period

(days)

Maximum

duration

of benefits

(weeks)

United States . . 82 <2 > 7 65

Canada ................ 89 8 out of 523 14 51

Japan ................ 45 26 out of 52 7 4 15-50

France................ 60 13 out of 52 0 4 52-104

Germany . . . . 77 26 out of 156 0 52

Great Britain . . 80 26 out of 52 53 5 52

I t a l y ................... 51 52 out of 104 7 26

Sweden6 . . . . . 100 20 out of 52 5 460-90

1 Coverage in 1974.

2 Eligibility requirements vary widely by State.

3For minimum benefits; 20 weeks of employment in the preceding year are required for maximum benefits.

4 Maximum duration for earnings-related benefits depends upon

age of claimant with duration rising with age.

5 Figures shown relate to flat-rate benefits. For earnings-related

supplements, waiting period is 14 days and maximum duration of

benefits is 26 weeks.

6 The trade union system covers about two-thirds of the labor

force and the labor market support program covers the remainder,

including new entrants; other figures are for trade union system,

maximum durations o f benefits, and benefits which typically replace at least half of former earnings o f the average

worker.19 In the United States, each o f the States, the

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have separate unemployment insurance laws subject to broad Federal guidelines. Because no uniform system exists, the most frequently

applicable regulations must be used for comparisons with

other countries. Australia is not covered here since unemployment relief payments are made in that country only to

persons with low income.

Table 20 indicates that Sweden leads all countries in

coverage of the labor force, with virtually all persons covered

who complete the specified waiting period. About twothirds of the labor force is covered by a government-subsidized system run by the trade unions. In addition, in 1974

Sweden established a “labor market support” system extending coverage to persons not in a trade union and to

those whose benefits with the fund have been exhausted;

also covered are all workers 16 and over who have recently

entered the labor market as well as persons reentering the

labor market.

Canada, the United States, and Great Britain all had

coverage of at least four-fifths of the labor force in 1974.20

The relatively low coverage in France, Italy, and Japan reflects, in part, large numbers o f self-employed and unpaid

family workers, persons generally not covered by unemployment insurance.

19Some additional information on unemployment compensation

is presented in Constance Sorrentino, “Unemployment Compensation in Eight Industrial Nations," Monthly Labor Review, July

1976, pp. 18-24.

2 0In 1975, coverage in the United States was increased to about 

90 percent of the work force under Emergency Jobs and Unemployment Assistance Act passed in December 1974.

56

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
To become entitled to unemployment benefits, a

worker must have worked a certain number of weeks, be

willing to return to work or to undertake training, have suffered loss of employment, and, in some cases, have met a

minimum level of earnings while employed.

All countries except Sweden require a set length of

previous work to ensure that the unemployed person has

suffered a wage loss. In the United States, most States require a minimum amount of earnings in the preceding base

year rather than a minimum number o f weeks of employment. In the other countries, eligibility requirements range

from 8 weeks of employment out of the preceding 52

weeks in Canada (for minimum benefits) to 52 weeks of

employment out of the preceding 104 weeks in Italy.

In Sweden, new entrants and reentrants to the labor

force may become eligible for benefits after a 3-month

period of unemployment during which they are actively

seeking work. The eligibility requirement under the trade

union system is 20 weeks of employment in the preceding

year.

A waiting period must usually be served before unemployment benefits become payable. Canada requires the

longest waiting period- 2 weeks. The United States, Italy,

and Japan require 1 week. Less than a week is required in

Sweden (trade union system) and Great Britain (for flatrate benefits), and no waiting period is imposed in France

and Germany. Except for Japan and Sweden, a waiting period is required for each new spell of unemployment. In

Japan, a waiting period of any 7 days during the preceding

year satisfies the requirement. Technically, Sweden has one

waiting period of 5 days during the year, but a 1964

labor-management agreement provides for employer-paid

layoff benefits during this period.

In the United States, the maximum duration of benefits tends to be adjusted according to the degree of unemployment that prevails in the economy. In times of low unemployment. American workers do nor fare as well as

workers in most of the other countries studied, but in times

of high unemployment, benefits are extended under Federal

programs; during the 1974-75 recession, extensions to 65

weeks of benefits were enacted.21 A similar mechanism

exists in Canada where the normal 26-week benefit period

is doubled when the national unemployment rate exceeds

4 percent, a condition met since 1967. In Japan, 1975 legislation also contains provisions for extended benefit periods.

A maximum benefit period o f 1 year is allowed in

Germany and Great Britain. In Italy, benefits are payable

for 26 weeks. Japan, France, and Sweden vary the maximum duration of benefits according to the age of the

claimant.

Uniquely. Japan provides a lump-sum bonus worth 30

to 70 days of unemployment benefits as an incentive for

21 The normal U.S. benefit period varies from 26 to 36 weeks

according to State.

quick reemployment. The payment is determined by the

unused portion of insurance rights.

Weekly benefits are expressed under most unemployment insurance benefit formulas as a percentage of the

worker’s recent average wages. In the United States, Canada,

France, and Germany, a benefit ceiling is imposed. In

France, the benefit is scaled down to a lower level after 3

months of unemployment. Under its regular system, France

provides flat amounts of unemployment assistance in combination with the earnings-related insurance compensation

for the first 3 months of unemployment without a means

test.22 Thereafter, the assistance payments are subject to a

means test. Japan and Sweden use systems of wage classes

that produce a scale o f percentages which vary inversely to

previous earnings levels. The Swedish labor market support

system provides a flat rate benefit, using a means test.

In Italy, there is an earnings-related scheme for agriculture, industry, and construction; only fiat amounts are

payable to all other unemployed workers. Prior to 1966,

flat amounts were also paid in Great Britain, but graduated

supplements based on previous earnings have been added to

flat benefits for the first 6 months of unemployment.

Supplementary allowances for a nonemployed spouse

and children are added in the form of flat amounts to the

basic benefit in France, Great Britain, and Japan. In France,

the supplements are provided under the unemployment

assistance program, subject to a means test. The French

worker previously earning the average manufacturing wage

would be eligible for the supplemental assistance if the

household had no other income than the worker’s unemployment benefits and a family allowance. In the United

States, only 10 States and the District of Columbia provide

dependents’ supplements. In Canada, these supplements are

provided to workers whose income is below a certain level

or whose unemployment is prolonged.

Unemployment benefits may vary by level of former

income and marital status. In addition, in all of the countries

except the United States, allowances are payable to families

with children and are paid whether or not a worker is unemployed.23

Table 21 presents a comparison of unemployment

benefits as a percent of a manufacturing worker’s average

earnings in mid-1975.24 In the United States, an unmarried

unemployed worker generally receives unemploymem benefits equal to approximately 50 percent of former gross earn2 ‘2Means-tested programs establish eligibility for benefits by

measuring individual or family resources against a standard, usually

based on subsistence needs.

2 3Family allowances are primarily regular cash pa,, ......its made by

the government to families with children. In some countries, these

programs also include educational grants, birth grants, maternal and

child health services, and sometimes allowances for adult dependents. Family allowances are payable to families thaf contain 1

child or more (Canada, Germany, Italy, and Sweden), 2 children

or more (France and Great Britain), or 3 children or more (Japan).

57

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ings, although not in excess of a State-established maximum.

The maximum benefit in the majority o f States is 50 percent o f the average State wage in insured employment.

In contrast, all of the foreign countries studied except Great Britain provide more than 50 percent o f the

average manufacturing worker’s previous earnings. France

provides the highest level o f benefits, replacing 90 percent

o f former earnings to workers laid off for cyclical or structural reasons, subject to official authorization. In mid1976, about 1 out of every 8 persons registered as unemployed was receiving this high rate o f benefit. Workers not

eligible for this system receive a much lower level of

benefits.

Canada, Japan, Germany, Sweden, and Italy replace

up to 60 percent or more o f former earnings o f the average

manufacturing worker. In Italy, the highest benefits go to

industrial workers, who receive two-thirds o f former earnings. Italian construction workers can obtain one-third of

their former wage (plus flat-rate benefits) and agricultural

workers 60 percent; persons who lose their jobs outside

agriculture, industry, and construction or who did not

satisfy eligibility requirements are entitled to very small

flat-rate benefits.

Both France (regular system) and Great Britain scale

down the benefit amount after an initial period o f unemployment. In France, regular benefits amount to 56 percent

of the unmarried manufacturing worker’s former wage during the first 3 months o f unemployment; thereafter, the

benefit falls to 50 percent. In Great Britain, a flat rate is

paid for the full year in addition to an earnings-related supplement paid only for the first half-year; thus the 38-percent

replacement rate for the first 6 months falls to 19 percent

in the next 6 months of unemployment. Public assistance

payments, including compensation for mortgage interest

and rent subsidies, can substantially increase these ratios.

The payment of supplements for dependents in several

countries, and o f family allowances in all countries except

the United States and Japan, causes the level of income support for an unemployed married person with two children

to rise relative to the U.S. level (table 21). The addition o f 24

24 Foi comparison it is assumed that average American and Canadian workers receive no dependents’ supplements and that the

worker has been earning the average wags in manufacturing prior to

unemployment. Earnings-related unemployment benefits are based

on a person’s earnings in a past period of time. This past period

(“base period”) varies from country to country. For example,

in the majority of States in the United States, the base period is the

highest quarter of wages during the year preceding unemployment.

In Japan, benefits are based upon the average daily wage in the

6 months preceding unemployment. France uses a base period of

the 3 months preceding unemployment. In Great Britain, the

base period is the tax year (April-March) preceding the calendar

year in which the claim to benefit is made. These varying base

periods were not taken into account in the calculations made in

table 21. These calculations simply state the level of benefits available in mid-1975 as a percent of average manufacturing earnings

in mid-1975.

Table 21. Unemployment benefits as a percent of average

earnings, manufacturing workers, mid-1975

Married worker

with 2 children

Country

Single

worker Unemployment

benefits

Unemployment benefits and

family

allowances

United States1 ................... 50 50 50

Canada ................................... 63 63 68

Japan ................................... 60 62 62

France ...................................

Regular system ................

First 3 m o n th s ............. 56 63 269-77

Subsequent months . . 50 57 263-71

Supplementary

benefits system3 .... 90 90 296-104

Germany ............................. 60 60 66

Great B r ita in ......................

First 6 months4 ............. 38 60 63

Next 6 months4 ............. 19 41 44

I t a l y ......................................

Flat-rate benefits............. 9 22 22

Earnings-related

scheme5 ......................... 67 80 80

Sweden6 ................................ 62-72 62-72 67-79

1 Figures shown are representative of the majority of States.

2 Lower figures relate to family allowance payable to family

with more than 1 wage earner; higher figure includes single wage

earner allowance.

3For workers under age 60 laid off for cyclical or structural

reasons.

4 Means-tested public assistance payments can substantially

raise these ratios.

5 Industrial sector employee at the same enterprise for 3 months.

6Trade union system. Numerical ranges due to trade union

funds.

dependents’ supplements in Great Britain increases the level

of earnings replacement above the U.S. level for the first 6

months of unemployment. In France, the addition o f supplements under the regular system keeps the replacement

ratio higher than the U.S. level even after it is scaled down

following the first 3 months o f unemployment. Under the

supplementary program, there are no dependents’ supplements, but family allowances continue to be received.

All the countries studied except the United States

provided for higher wage replacement rates for persons earning relatively low wages. In Canada, a benefit rate o f 75

percent applies to claimants with dependents and with

earnings below one-third o f maximum weekly insurable

earnings. Similarly, Japanese workers at the low end o f the

wage scale receive 80 percent o f their former wage. France

allows a maximum payment o f combined regular insurance

and assistance o f 90 percent o f the former earnings o f the

household. This maximum is raised to 95 percent if there

are dependents.

In Great Britain, the maximum of the flat rate plus

earnings-related supplements equals 85 percent o f former

earnings. Germany allows unemployment insurance plus

family allowances to amount to 80 percent o f former net

58

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
earnings (about 70 percent of gross earnings). Sweden’s

trade union system allows a maximum benefit o f about 90

percent of gross earnings. In Italy, flat-rate benefits will

replace a higher proportion o f the earnings o f a low income

than of a middle- or high-wage earner. However, there is no

maximum percentage applied. In contrast to the foreign

practices, the United States does not provide higher replacement rates to lower income workers. But such workers are

eligible for such welfare programs as food stamps.

In the United States, unemployment benefits are

treated as tax-free income. This is also the case in Japan,

Germany, Great Britain, and Italy. In Canada and Sweden,

however, unemployment benefits are taxable; in France, ail

unemployment benefits except the flat-rate assistance payments are taxable. Canadian unemployment benefits typically amount to 63 percent of former gross earnings, but,

after taxes, the worker actually receives less. Therefore,

Canadian benefits received by the worker are only slightly

higher than U.S. payments. Similarly, “after-tax” replacement ratios in France and Sweden would be somewhat

nearer the U.S. level.

Short-time payments. In some countries, special payments

are available for workers placed on short workweeks. During

1974-75, the introduction or improvement o f compensation

for partial unemployment permitted a fairly widespread

resort to part-time work in several countries as a means o f

spreading a reduced volume o f employment among the

work force.

For many years, statutory unemployment insurance

or assistance schemes in France, Germany, Great Britain,

and Sweden have contained provisions covering payments

for partial unemployment.25 Japan introduced such payments in 1975. In Italy, partial-unemployment compensation is provided by a special institution, the Wage Supplement Fund. The United States and Canada do not have

systems for short-time payments.

Short-time payments replace 70 to 90 percent o f foregone gross earnings in Japan, 80 percent in Italy, 60 percent

in Germany, and about 50 percent in France. Generally, financing is partly out o f public funds and partly by the firms

concerned.

Almost 3 million Japanese workers (5 to 6 percent o f

the labor force) received short-time compensation at some

time during 1975. In Germany, the number o f such workers

peaked at 4 percent o f the labor force in early 1975. There

were also large numbers of workers receiving short-time

compensation in France and Italy during 1974-75. Without

the special benefit programs, many o f the workers on short

workweeks would have been unemployed. Short-time payments have undoubtedly played an important role in pro2 5 For further information see Sar A. Levitan and Richard S.

Belous, “Work-sharing Initiatives at Home and Abroad,” Monthly

Labor Review, September 1977, pp. 16-20; and Peter Henle, Work

Sharing as an Alternative to Layoffs (Washington, Congressional

Research Service, July 19,1976)

tecting many workers threatened by dismissal in these

countries.

Some countries, such as the United States, have traditionally rejected the idea o f compensation for short-time

work because it can encourage rigidity in the labor market,

with employers receiving public funds to keep workers employed while not adopting necessary technological and organizational changes. While this argument is recognized as

valid, defenders o f the short-time compensation system are

prepared to pay the price. They are convinced that, as soon

as temporary difficulties are overcome, it will prove to be

much more efficient and cheaper to have maintained trained

personnel.26 Also they consider that layoffs are viewed

most unfavorably by the public (see section on legal and

social factors).

“Bad weather” compensation. Most European countries

provide special compensation for construction workers who

lose work time on account o f bad weather. These schemes

take three major forms: Statutory systems; collective agreements; and collective agreements given the force of law.

To qualify for bad-weather benefit payments, workers

are generally required to report for duty at the usual time

and to remain available for any other reasonable alternative

work which may be assigned to them by the employer. The

amount o f compensation ranges between 60 and 75 percent o f the basic wage, but in some cases is as high as 90 percent. In some countries, such as Austria, Norway, Sweden,

and Great Britain, a limit is placed on the number o f hours

or days for which bad weather is compensated. In other

countries, such as Germany and Ireland, no time limit has

been instituted. In most countries, these schemes are financed only through contributions from employers. In a

fewr countries, workers also pay contributions in addition

to their unemployment insurance contributions. In general,

government financing has been confined to occasions when

funds prove inadequate.

The system in Germany provides a good example o f a

compensatory income program. Since 1959, construction

workers in Germany have been kept on the employer’s payroll during the winter months (November 1 to March 31)

and receive compensation- termed “bad weather money”-

for any days not worked because o f inclement weather. The

employer pays the bad weather compensation along with

the workers’ regular earnings and is reimbursed for the bad

weather pay by the Federal Employment Office. The German construction worker does not sever his employment

relationship in order to collect benefits and he is not

counted as unemployed. Prior to the institution o f bad

weather money, the German construction worker had to

either depend on unemployment insurance or find other

work during bad weather. The employment relationship

2 6 National Commission for Manpower Policy, Reexamining European Manpower Policies, Special Report No. 10 (Washington,

August 1976), p. 31.

59

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
was severed and he was counted as unemployed in the

German statistics.

As a result of the bad weather money system,German

unemployment rates in the construction industry are not

appreciably higher than the overall unemployment rate.

Before the institution o f the system, construction industry

unemployment was about 3xh times the overall unemployment rate.

Another practice with a similar effect occurs in Great

Britain. There, construction workers receive a guaranteed

minimum wage; this encourages their employers to utilize

work forces as fully as possible. The scheme provides for

the worker to receive the normal wage for half the time lost

during a normal workweek, with a guarantee that he will

receive his usual pay for a minimum o f 36 hours in a week.

He is also entitled to 36 hours o f pay during the following

week. Thereafter, if the bad weather continues, he is required to register as unemployed under the unemployment

compensation system. This scheme places the cost o f idleness directly on the employer, thus creating an incentive for

him to stabilize production at the highest possible level.

Early retirement benefits. Payment o f early retirement

benefits can reduce recorded unemployment in two ways.

First, the early retiree may withdraw from the labor force;

therefore, he would not be regarded as unemployed. Second,

his early retirement may free a job for an unemployed person. Whether a retired person wishes to continue to work

depends in part on the amount o f his pension. The higher

it is, the less likely he will be to continue working.

Various schemes for early retirement have been offered

to workers in several countries, usually for cyclical or structural reasons. In France, for workers over 60 years o f age at

time o f dismissal or who become 60 while receiving unemployment benefits, a 1972 income guarantee scheme replaced the former payments made to workers until they

reached retirement a g e -“waiting allowances”—under the

unemployment insurance program.27 Recipients o f the income guarantee, unlike recipients o f “waiting allowances,”

are not included in the registered unemployed. The scheme

guarantees that workers dismissed after reaching age 60 will

receive benefits up until their retirement at age 65. These

benefiis are more generous than the normal unemployment

benefits, replacing up to 85 percerii o f former earnings.

As o f July 1975, French manual workers who have

been engaged in more arduous kinds o f labor, and also all

women workers who have borne at least three children, became cag:: * i d early retirement at 60 on the same pension

as is normally given at age 6 5 } 8 The measure was enacted

partly in response to a union campaign for early retirement

as a means o f combating rapidly rising unemployment. It

2 7Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

Economic Suney o f France (Paris, OECD, February 1973), p. 22.

2 8 Incomes Data Services, “Early Retirement for Some Manual

Workers in 1 ranee,” IDS International Report, July 1976, pp. 2-3.

was estimated that initially about 75,000 persons were affected by the new scheme.

In Great Britain, an early retirement scheme began in

January 1977.29 It provided £23 a week tax-free to employed or unemployed persons who opted to retire a year

early. If such early-retirement volunteers were employed,

their employers had to replace them with someone on the

unemployment register. The initial trial scheme expired

at the end o f June 1977, and 10,600 persons were involved.

A second phase of the scheme began July 1 ,1 9 7 7 , and was

expected to cover about 13,000 more persons.

Sweden instituted a national partial retirement scheme

in mid-1976.30 If the insured worker transfers to part-time

work, he can receive a partial pension between ages 60 and

65. The pension replaces 65 percent o f the income lost because o f the transfer. The scheme is financed by employers

through a social insurance fee. The law also makes it possible

to receive a reduced pension as early as age 60, while the

usual pensionable age was lowered from 67 to 65. For persons who opt for early retirement, benefits are reduced by

0.5 percent per month below the age o f 65.

Labor market programs

Labor market policies constitute the measures used

by government to upgrade the skills o f workers, to create

jobs, and to match people and jobs. The general techniques

of labor market policy have been developed and used in

both Western Europe and North America. However, differences in economic environment, social attitudes, and institutional arrangements have had an impact on the mix o f

labor market measures and on the way in which they have

been applied in different countries.3 1

The following sections present a brief discussion o f

some o f the instruments o f labor market policy used in the

major industrial countries. Government-sponsored adult

training seeks to upgrade the quality o f the work force.

Public works projects have been used to create jobs in times

of cyclical or seasonal employment downturns. In the area

of matching people and jobs, relocation incentives for

workers and industries and the work o f the national employment services are significant instruments o f labor market

policy.

Training programs. The United States first embarked upon

a large-scale government program o f retraining for adults

2 9 See “Jop Swap,” Incomes Data Services, IDS International

Report, October 1976, p. 2; and “Job Release Takes Off,” Department o f Employment News, January 1977, p. 1.

30“Flexible Retirement Provisions in Sweden: A Novel System,”

European Industrial Relations Review, March 1977, pp. 11-12.

31 For a study of the different strategies taken with regard to the

mix between unemployment compensation and other employment

policies, see Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Unemployment Compensation and Related Employment

Policy Measures (Paris, OECD, forthcoming).

60

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
under the 1962 Manpower Development and Training Act.

The MDTA expired at the end o f fiscal year 1973. Government training programs are now authorized under the

Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) o f

1973. Western European countries have been operating retraining programs throughout the postwar period, and in

some cases, as far back as the 1920’s and 1930’s.32

The European training programs offer adult trainees

a variety o f benefits to enable them to undertake training.

These benefits include compensation for loss o f earnings,

social insurance premiums, lodging and food, special clothing and tools, travel, and dual household maintenance.3 3

Unlike the situation in the United States, where 85

percent o f ail training program enrollees were disadvantaged

in 1974,3 ^European training programs are not concentrated

on the disadvantaged. The European programs are available

to persons seeking advancement or preparation for shortage occupations as well as to the unemployed and unskilled.

Public systems o f continuous training o f adults, sometimes called lifetime learning, are coming to the fore in

Western Europe.35 The need for a more qualified work

force is judged to be so urgent and the right to training for

advancement so fundamental that France (1967 and 1971)

and Germany (1969) have made outright commitments to

the principle o f universal eligibility to continuing lifetime

training. The existence o f a vast amount of adult training in

the United States, including private and public vocational

training, and the long period o f general education compared

with other countries probably lessen the need for “permanent education.”

New enrollments in government-sponsored training

programs were 2.4 percent o f the Swedish labor force in

1976 compared with 1.5 percent in the United States in

fiscal 1976.36 * Recent rapid expansion in Canadian training

3 2 See Margaret S. Gordon, The Comparative Experience with

Retraining Programs in the United States and Europe (Berkeley,

University of California, 1966).

33U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Manpower Policy and Programs in Five Western European Countries,

(Manpower Research Bulletin Number 11, July 1966).

34Under CETA, the composition of participants in U.S. programs

has changed somewhat. In fiscal 1976, 76 percent of all trainees

under Title I of CETA were classified as disadvantaged.

3 5 Beatrice Reubens, “Manpower Policy in Western Europe,”

Manpower, November 1972, pp. 16-22.

36 U.S. figures comprise first-time enrollments under Titles I,

III, and IV of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act.

Title I authorizes a nationwide program ol comprehensive employment and training services. Title 111 provide.; lor nationally sponsored and supervised training and job placement programs for

such special groups as youth, offenders, older workers, and others

with a particular labor market disadvantage. Title IV provides the

authorization for the Job Corps, a program ot intensive education,

counseling, and training for disadvantaged youth.

programs has put that country close to Sweden in the extent o f adult training. German legislation in 1969 and 1971

had laid the basis for an explosive expansion o f adult training under public sponsorship, and France’s 1971 law on

adult training sets a goal o f keeping over 2 percent o f the

labor force constantly in training.3 7

Sweden is unique in that it has deliberately employed

its adult training programs as an economic instrument for

countercyclical purposes, expanding them rapidly whenever demand slackens. Thus, the training courses in Sweden

are used as a form o f public works for the unemployed as

well as a means o f upgrading the skills o f the labor force.

They have been an important factor in holding Swedish unemployment rates low during economic downturns.

Job creation. Public works projects are used in most countries to offset cyclical or seasonal declines in employment.

In Germany, unemployment insurance funds may be used

to provide jobs on public works projects in lieu o f making

unemployment insurance payments. The relief work programs include road construction, reforestation, and recovery o f wastelands. Preference is given to projects likely

to lead to permanent jobs.

Projects similar to those in Germany are utilized in

Sweden. In 1976, almost 1 percent of the Swedish work

force was employed in relief works. The Swedish Labor

Market Board also has unique powers for stimulating the investment o f private capital to create jobs and mitigate

cyclical fluctuations.38 * This requires close coordination of

monetary and fiscal policy with employment policy. Employers may set aside as much as 40 percent o f their profits

for capital investment, depositing a fixed proportion of this

in the Swedish central bank, without paying income taxes

on the amount set aside. When it is determined that capital

investment would be appropriate to combat a recession, the

funds may be released with additional tax incentives to employers who use them for new plant and equipment.

In the United States, the first large-scale public works

employment program since the 1930’s was enacted in 1971.

Under this Public Employment Program (PEP), funds were

made available nationally for public service employment

when the national unemployment rate equaled or exceeded

4.5 percent for 3 consecutive months. As a result, 226,000

persons, or about 0.3 percent of the labor force, obtained

employment during fiscal 1972. PEP was terminated at the

end o f fiscal 1973, and public works jobs are now funded

under CETA. in fiscal 1976, first-time enrollments in public

3 7In 1973, about 3.7 percent of the French labor force received

training in whole :i in part with government funds. Since many

courses are of brief duration. a smaller proportion of the labor

force wac in government-funded training at any one time.

38 See Hans Brems, “Swedish Fine Turing,” Challenge, MarchAprii 1976, pp. 39-42; and “Anti-Recession Policies in Sweden,”

OECD Observer, March-April 1976, pp. 31-32.

61

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
service jobs under CETA totalled 487,000, or 0.5 percent

of the U.S. labor force.39

Matching people and jobs. All Western European countries

and Canada include relocation assistance as an important

part of their labor market programs. There are allowances

for travel expenses, payments to cover the cost o f moving

household goods, and in some countries a resettlement

allowance to help defray the expenses o f selling one home

and buying another and allowances to cover the added expense o f maintaining two households if the worker cannot

move his family right away. In the United States, relocation

with government assistance is not extensive.40

The United States has had some experience with

fostering economic development in lagging regions beginning

with programs under the Area Redevelopment Act o f 1961.

In the mid-1960’s, further steps were taken with the enactment o f the Appalachian Regional Development Act and

the programs of the Economic Development Administration. These provided for business loans, grants and loans

for public works and development facilities, technical

assistance, and research assistance in areas with relatively

high unemployment.

European countries have had considerable experience

in the use o f programs to attract industry to areas where

unemployment is high. In Germany and Great Britain, there

are programs to encourage investment and industrial growth

in areas where surplus labor is available. France uses a system o f loans, interest subsidies, and tax incentives to guide

industrial location. In Sweden, the Labor Market Board can

influence the location o f industrial enterprises through its

authority to approve loans.

Measures to improve information about available

workers and job vacancies concern both the demand and

supply side o f the labor market. Employment services in

almost all countries studied have been modernized, although

the scope and quality o f the services offered vary from

country to country.

It should be noted that only in the English-speaking

countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, and Great

3 9 Enrollments under Titles II and VI of CETA. Title II authorizes

transitional public service employment and other manpower services

in areas with 6.5 percent or higher unemployment for 3 consecutive months. Title VI authorizes a temporary emergency program of

public service jobs to help ease the impact of high unemployment.

Public works jobs have also been created by the Public Works Economic Development Act. By June 30, 1977, 38,000 short-term jobs,

amounting to 19,900 labor months of work, had been created by

this act.

40 Relocation assistance projects for workers were undertaken

under the MDTA, which aided the relocation of about 14,000

workers and their families between 1965 and 1969. Congress

did not appropriate any funds for these projects after 1969. There

is relocation assistance available under the Trade Act of 1974 to

workers who lose their jobs because of imports.

Britain-is there extensive activity by private employment

agencies. In most countries such agencies are forbidden, restricted to certain occupations, or regulated. In Great

Britain, regulatory legislation was passed in 1973 which

established licensing requirements for private employment

agencies.

Data-processing techniques have frequently been introduced in employment service agencies to match job vacancies and applicants with a minimum o f delay. Japan

has pioneered in the development o f a computerized employment service linking the 700 offices o f the service with

a Labor Market Center. Only in Japan and France does it

appear that computers do the work of matching job requirements and candidate qualifications.41 * In the United States,

for example, job banks in most States have eliminated

tedious searching through files, but searching on supply

and demand sides is carried on separately. In Japan, Sweden,

and Germany, interregional placements have grown whereas

in the United States local market clearance predominates.

Factors affecting youth unemployment

The business cycle has a pronounced effect on youth

unemployment. Thus international differences in youth unemployment rates are partly the result o f cyclical factors

such as the timing and severity o f recessions. However, in

times o f both prosperity and recession, the United States

has had youth unemployment rates which rank among the

highest in the industrial world. The United States has also

had a rather wide differential between youth and adult unemployment rates, although some countries have caught up

with or surpassed the United States in recent years in terms

of the youth-adult differential. (See chapter 3.)

Some o f the factors which may affect international

differences in youth unemployment rates are discussed below. Supply and demand trends in the youth labor market

are discussed first. Other aspects considered are the student

labor force, apprenticeship, counseling and placement services, and the youth minimum wage.

Supply and demand. As indicated in an earlier section, the

United States and Canada have had rapid increases in the

teenage labor force during the period since 1960, while the

European countries and Japan have had declining teenage

work forces. Thus the United States and Canada were under

pressure from a fast-growing teenage labor force which contributed to higher rates o f both overall and teenage unemployment. However, some countries in which the teenage

41 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

Inflation: the Present Problem (Paris, OECD, December 1970),

p. 108; and ‘‘Manpower Policy in Japan,” OECD Observer, April

1973, p. 34. Computer processing of job openings and job applicants in France began in 1977. The system currently operates on

a regional basis and there are pians to eventually establish links

between the regional computer systems.

62

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
labor force has actually declined-e.g., France and Italy—

also have substantial youth unemployment.

During the 1960’s, a tight labor market in many European countries and Japan fostered a high demand for

young workers. Labor shortages gave many young people

opportunities to choose among jobs and to enter the occupational hierarchy at higher levels than would have been

possible in less favorable times. The favorable experience o f

the 1960’s has been changing, and several countries have

observed a deterioration in the relative position o f youth in

recent years as structural problems have been intensified by

deep recession,42

In some nations, new entrants are eagerly sought by

employers who are willing to take youngsters without

occupational skills or previous work experience. Japan,

Great Britain, and Germany are among the countries where

the transition is eased because employers recruit young

people straight from school and provide training for many

of them. While this acceptance o f youth is less common in

France, it is even less visible in the United States where

employers exhibit little active interest in hiring teenagers.43

According to one study, employers are reluctant to hire

American teenagers because o f restrictions on employing

them in hazardous work, the cumbersome machinery o f

work certificates, union restrictions, and problems o f transportation 44 Also, dissatisfaction with teenager absenteeism,

unreliability, and job performance is common.

The student labor force. The labor market activity o f students in the United States differs markedly from the pattern

abroad. The frequent entries and exits o f students in the

American labor market do not occur to any significant

extent in Western European countries and Japan. The working student is very much an American phenomenon. The

young persons who work or seek work in other countries

are mainly out-of-school youth.

4 2 In response to the rise in youth unemployment during the

1970’s, the OECD has carried out research on the problems faced by

young people in the transition from school to work. See The Entry

o f Young People into Working Life (Paris, OECD, 1977). In addition, the OECD convened a “High Level Conference on Youth Unemployment” in December 1977 to work out a diagnosis of the

problem and to exchange national experiences concerning the

measures taken to deal with youth unemployment. The Council of

Ministers of Social Affairs of the European Communities (EC) also

held a conference on youth unemployment in late 1977 to identify

areas where common action might be necessary.

4 3 Beatrice G. Reubens, “Foreign and American Experience with

the Youth Transition,” in From School to Work: Improving the

Transition, a collection of policy papers prepared for the National

Commission for Manpower Policy (Washington, U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1976), p. 274. See also Beatrice G. Reubens, Bridges

to Work: International Comparisons o f Transition Services (New

York, Universe Books, 1977).

44 Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages (BLS Bulletin

1657, 1970), p. 69.

In the United States, unemployment rates for students have been higher than for nonstudents under age 25

since 1965, reversing the situation o f the early 1960’s and

previously, when the rates were higher for those out o f

school. The higher rate among students may reflect the

much larger numbers seeking employment and their limited

availability with respect to hours o f work 45

Separate figures for employment and unemployment

o f students are not available for most countries. No country

has a survey as comprehensive as the October special labor

force survey questions on students for the United States.46

However, some information on student labor force activity

is available for Canada, Great Britain, and Japan.

According to the October 1975 survey for the United

States, 31 percent o f all employed persons age 16 to 24

were enrolled in school. If part-time college students are

excluded, the proportion declines to 26 percent. Persons

enrolled in school accounted for 14 percent o f total U.S.

unemployment. If they had not been included, the October

1975 unemployment rate (not seasonally adjusted) would

have been 6.7 percent rather than 7.8 percent.

A recent special study on labor force activities o f

Canadian students presented some data which can be compared with the U.S. October surveys.47 The figures indicate

that student labor force activity in Canada, although substantial, is not as widespread as in the United States. In

October 1975, 24 percent o f all employed persons age 15

to 24 were enrolled in school. If part-time Canadian students are excluded, the proportion falls to 19 percent. Persons enrolled in school accounted for 11 percent o f total

Canadian unemployment in October 1975.

British full-time students who also worked accounted

for only 9 percent o f total employment o f 15- to 24-yearolds in 1972. This figure is an annual average; a figure for

students working during the school term (as reflected in

the U.S. figures for October ) would be considerably lower.

However, even on an annual basis, the figure is well below

the U.S. and Canadian proportions for October.

In Japan, only about 50,000 persons are normally

engaged in both work and schooling. This represents less

than 1 percent o f employment in the 15- to 24-year-old

age group.

The United States has much higher proportions o f 16-

to 19-year-olds in school. (See table 22.) For example, about

94 percent o f all 16-year-olds are in school in the United

States, 80 percent in Japan, 40 percent in Great Britain,

and 30 percent in Germany. For 19-year-olds, the contrast

45 Anne M. Young, “Employment of School Age Youth,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1970, p. 9.

4 6For example, see Anne M. Young, “Students, Graduates, and

Dropouts in the Labor Market, October 1975,” Monthly Labor

Review, June 1976, pp. 37-41.

47Leonel Plasse, Labour Force Activities and Characteristics o f

Students, Statistics Canada Research Paper No. 14, July 1977.

63

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 22. Percent of 16- to 19-year-olds in educational

institutions, all levels, 1966-72

Country Year

Age

16 17 18 19

United States . . 1970 94.1 86.9 58.1 45.4

Australia............. 1972 54.9 36.3 18.0 10.7

Canada ................ 1970 87.1 69.0 45.5 30.3

France ................ 1970 62.6 45.5 30.6 21.8

Germany . . . . 1969 31.3 19.2 12.9 9.6

Great Britain . . 1970 41.6 25.9 17.4 13.7

I t a l y ................... 1966 33.6 27.4 19.7 11.0

Japan ................ 1970 80.0 74.8 29.5 22.0

Sweden ............. 1972 73.7 60.7 40.7 24.0

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Educational Statistics Yearbook, VoL II, Country Tables

(Pa?is, OECD, 1975) as tabulated by Beatrice Reubens in From

School to Work: Improving the Transition, a collection of policy

papers prepared for the National Commission for Manpower Policy

(Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976), p. 280.

is even greater. Thus, other countries have a much higher

proportion of teenagers who are out of school and working

at or seeking full-time year-round jobs. Furthermore, those

young persons still in school in Europe and Japan usually

do not also participate in the labor force. This has been attributed to the academic demands o f school combined with

government financial support to young persons, especially

those in low income families, who continue their education

beyond the legal minimum age.

Apprenticeship and formal training programs. In the United

States, a small proportion of high school graduates enroll in

apprenticeship or vocational training courses. A study of

the high school class of 1972 indicated that only 1.9 percent planned to enroll in apprenticeship or on-the-job training programs and 10.8 percent planned to take vocational

or technical training at specialized schools or junior colleges.48 The total number of apprenticeships completed

annually in the United States is roughly 50,000, with

292,000 persons enrolled in such programs as o f January 1,

1975. In contrast, Germany, with a much smaller population than the United States, had 1,400,000 persons in apprenticeship programs during 1975. The contrast was even

greater in 1960 when the United States had 166,000 and

Germany had 1,224,000 apprentices in training. In that

year, France had about 140,000 enrolled apprentices and

Great Britain had 123,000.

In most foreign countries, apprenticeship and vocational education are widespread. Vocational education programs are predominant in France and Sweden; apprenticeship training is the principal type of industrial training for

youths in Great Britain and Germany, and is widely used

elsewhere. In Japan, training within enterprises usually

48 National Center for Education Statistics, National Longitudinal

Study o f the High School Class o f 1972, Data File Users Manual

(Washington, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

July 1976).

marks the beginning of life-long employment. Where apprenticeship programs are significant, they provide em ployment security for a good proportion of the young people in

the labor force. Apprentices are not immune to unemployment but they have shown greater stability during training

than other youth.49 Historically, countries with extensive

apprenticeship programs have had low youth unemployment.

Apprenticeship in America never acquired the scope

or prestige that it enjoyed in Europe because the economic

and social development of the United States did not encourage this form of craft training. Neither employers nor

workers were eager to enter agreements that would be binding on them for a period o f years. U.S. unions obtain the

bulk o f their membership through channels other than apprenticeship.50

In recent years, apprenticeship has been declining

relative to other activities o f young people in those countries where apprenticeship formerly was well established.

The number of apprenticeship places has been declining

in Germany, Great Britain, and Australia, for instance.

Employers are increasingly reluctant to undertake apprenticeship because o f the rising cost of training, the trend

toward longer schooling which deprives the employer of

the preferred age group, and technological changes which

require a broader, general educational background and

wider, less specialized training.51

Counseling and placement services. Several countries, including Germany, Great Britain, and Japan, engage in extensive counseling and placement activities for youth.52

In Germany, for instance, the Federal employment service and its local agencies provide nearly all students with

comprehensive vocational orientation before graduation.

If training in the chosen occupation is not available locally,

the vocational guidance service can provide youth with financial assistance to go where training is given. In Great

Britain, staff members of the Careers Offices o f the Youth

4 9 Beatrice G. Reubens, “Foreign Experience,” in Report o f Congressional Budget Office Conference on The Teenage Unemployment Problem: What Are the Options? Congress of the United

States, Congressional Budget Office (Washington, U.S. Government

Printing Office, October 14, 1976), p. 56.

50Thomas H. Patten, Jr., Manpower Planning and the Development o f Human Resources (New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1971),

pp. 284, 300.

**1 Beatrice G. Reubens, Policies for Apprenticeship, Unpublished

study prepared for the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development, 1977.

5 2 Reubens, Bridges to Work, op. cit.; Transition from School

to Work in Selected Countries, (Bureau of Labor Statistics, August

1969); David Bauer, Factors Moderating Unemployment Abroad

(New York, The Conference Board, 1970), pp. 8-9; and Manpower

Report o f the President, 1968, p. 118.

64

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Employment Service interview almost all school leavers.

During the 1960’s, they placed approximately one-third

of all youths in their first jobs. The public employment

service in Japan conducts guidance programs and provides

information to the education authorities, who in turn give

vocational orientation in the schools. Partly as a result of

the deliberate efforts of the official guidance and placement services to prearrange jobs, a large portion of the

youths of these countries are able to obtain their first job

after leaving school without experiencing an initial period

of unemployment.

Youth minimum wages. Wage differentials based on the

worker’s youth alone are used on a very limited basis in the

United States. The Fair Labor Standards Act contains provisions for subminimum wages for students and learners,

but these provisions have not been used to any significant

extent partly because employers generally regard the required recordkeeping as too burdensome. Also, employers

feel that students are not willing to work at subminimum

wages.

In contrast, differentials between youth and adult

wages are common in Western Europe and Japan. Some

countries have minimum wage laws that provide for lower

minimum wages for teenagers. Some have collective bargaining procedures that can result in differentially lower wages

for young workers. Still other countries use both mechanisms.5 3

Under collective bargaining agreements in Great

Britain, youth enter employment at about 30 percent of

adult earnings and, by steps, reach adult wages normally at

age 21 for men and 18 for women. In France, with both a

statutory minimum and minimum rates set under collective

bargaining, there is a system of reduced rates whereby

youth enter employment at about 70 percent of the adult

minimum at age 16 and reach the adult rate at age 18. Youth

wage rate schemes are also used in Canada, Germany, and

Japan. In Japan, where wages are based in large part on age

or seniority throughout working life, young workers start

at about one-third the adult rate.

It has been argued that relatively low wages for teenagers compared to adult wages tend to facilitate the employment of youth. One study concluded the following:

The evidence from abroad indicates that low wages

for youth are an inducement to employers to seek

young workers eagerly. The relatively low youth

unemployment rates abroad . . . are partially a reflection of the fact of low wages for youth.54

53 Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages, pp. 107-12,

135-79.

54Thomas W. Gavett, “Youth Unemployment and Minimum

Wages,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1970, p. 9.

This study pointed out that low wages for youth in

Europe cannot be separated from the extensive apprenticeship programs in such countries as Germany and Great Britain and from the lifetime employment system in Japan

under which high wages in later years with the firm offset

the low wages paid young workers. Also, experience in

foreign countries having institutions different from those

in the United States has a limited application to American

teenagers who are much more likely to be looking for a parttime job rather than a permanent job.

The situation in France and Canada demonstrates

that more is involved in achieving full employment among

teenagers than provisions for lower wage levels. Both of

these countries provide youth minimum wages, yet both

have high youth unemployment. Furthermore, in spite of

legislation and agreements for youth differentials, the actual

earnings of youth have risen faster than those of adults in a

number of foreign countries.55 Thus, several European

countries report a growing reluctance on the part of employers to hire young people because of relatively high

wage rates and fringe benefits for entry-level jobs which result in a cost disadvantage if training and induction costs

are included. Apprentice wages have also risen considerably

in Western European countries.

Legal and social factors

Legal and social factors play an important role in

holding down unemployment in Western Europe and Japan.

Unemployment in several European countries has been

curbed by legislation or labor-management agreements that

shield workers from layoffs. U.S. job security measures, by

contrast, are much weaker. Where they exist, they are based

on seniority and usually specify severance pay related to

the length of service.56

In Germany, under a 1951 law, a legally valid discharge may be declared ineffective by the Labor Court if it

is “socially unjustified,” that is, if it cannot be based on the

characteristics or conduct of the employee or on important

needs of the enterprise. Even if important business needs

warrant the discharge, it is nevertheless “socially unjustified” if the employer selected the worker for discharge

without giving sufficient attention to the social factors involved,5 7 The procedures required under the 1951 law

were made even stronger by the Works Constitution Act of

1972. Under certain collective bargaining agreements, German employers are prohibited from dismissing workers be55 Reubens, “Foreign Experience,” pp. 287-88.

5 6David Jenkins, “Job Security Measures Growing Throughout

Europe,” World o f Work Report, July 1976, p. 3.

S 7Kurt Braun, “European Limitations on Employee Dismissal,”

Monthly Labor Review, January 1965, p. 67.

65

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tween a given age (ages 45 to 55, depending on the industry) and the age of pensionable retirement.58

As a good example of how the German system

works, one of the companies of the Thyssen group carried

out a massive reorganization, involving the loss of about

6,000 jobs. The head of the firm’s works council, which is

an employee-run unit financed by the company, discussed

problems with the employees, found jobs for many in other

units of the company, and negotiated numerous problems

with management. Not a single day was lost through labor

conflict and no one suffered exceptional hardship.59

Strict legislation also exists in Italy. Courts have applied tough standards to judge whether adequate justification exists for a dismissal; if not, a dismissed employee is

entitled to reinstatement or an indemnity of 5 months’

wages. In case a layoff is eventually made, the employer is

required to take account of a number of factors, including

the family responsibilities and economic situation of the

workers. In many firms, labor agreements also provide protection. At Fiat, where worker protection has been increasingly strengthened by labor contracts during the past few

years, no reduction in the work force is permitted.60

The French Ministry of Labor can require an employer

to postpone separations for economic reasons to allow the

Ministry time to determine that every precaution has been

taken to minimize the hardship on workers. The employer

is expected to make strong efforts at the firm’s expense to

find another job for workers about to be separated.

A national agreement on security of employment was

signed in February 1969 by French employers and all the

trade union federations. This agreement, like the individual

industry agreements which followed it, recognizes the responsibility of the parties towards security of employment.

In the case of prospective dismissals, the firm must consult

with the plant employment committee and give due notice,

endeavor to minimize dismissals, and utilize intraplant or

intracompany transfers. Reductions of staff must be

achieved as far as possible by attrition. The employer must

give a dismissed worker priority reemployment rights for a

year, guarantee seniority rights with the firm, and assist him

in obtaining all unemployment benefits to which he is entitled. The employer “must search for possibilities of redeployment likely to suit the wage-earners who are dismissed

as well as training facilities from which these workers might

benefit.”61

S 8Edward Yemin, “Job Security: Influence of ILO Standards and

Recent Trends,” International Labour Review, January-February

1976, p. 3.

59Jenkins, op. cit., p. 3.

60 Jenkins, op. cit.,p. 4.

61 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

Manpower Policy in France (Paris, OECD, 1973), p. 63.

An employer’s ability to lay off workers is also considerably restricted by Swedish law. Existing protection of 

employees was improved when the Security of Employment 

Act went into effect in 1974.62 According to this law, an

employee can only be dismissed on “reasonable” grounds.

The law virtually prohibits the dismissal of any employee 

except for the most serious misbehavior. The law is so

stringent that it is beginning to show some counterproductive effects. It has had a negative effect on the employment

of workers who find it more difficult to prove themselves -

e.g., the young, the old, and the handicapped.63 The Promotion of Employment Act of 1974 contains rules designed

to help older employees and disabled workers. According

to these rules, labor market authorities are to negotiate

with the employer and appropriate trade union in an effort

to allow such workers to retain their jobs.

Laws or labor-management agreements requiring advance notice of layoff give workers time to look for another

job prior to dismissal. Where advance notification provisions

are in effect, they allow for the placing of at least some

workers in new jobs without a period of unemployment

associated with the job search.

In the United States, most collective bargaining agreements do not contain clauses prescribing advance notice of

layoff. Moreover, those provisions that deal generally with

advance notice of layoff (43 percent of the major agreements) normally specifiy only a very limited time periodin most cases less than 30 days.64

Advance notification has been required by various

laws regarding the dismissal of workers in Western European

countries. One type of law obliges the employer to notify

the employment service of the impending dismissal. Such

laws exist in France,Germany, and Great Britain. In Sweden,

the Employers’ Federation has an agreement with the

Labor Market Board which requires a minimum of 30 days’

notice to the employment service by employers preceding

collective dismissals. Also, the Promotion of Employment

Act (1974) contains rules concerning periods of notice to

trade unions before production cutbacks can involve dismissals.

Another type of law calls for advance notice to employees prior to dismissal. France, Germany, Great Britain,

and Sweden have such legislation. For example, the Swedish

law on Security of Employment requires a minimum of 1

month’s notice, with longer notice (up to 6 months) as an

employee gets older.

Besides laws, social custom and tradition play an

important part in diminishing the threat of layoff in Europe

and Japan. Employers avoid dismissals if at all possible be62 Lennart Forseback, Industrial Relations and Employment in

Sweden (Stockholm, The Swedish Institute, 1976), p. 99.

63Jenkins, op. c it, p. 4.

64Characteristics o f Major Collective Bargaining Agreements,

July 1,1975 (BLS Bulletin 1957, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1977),

p. 89.

66

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cause they feel a high degree of responsibility for their

regular employees and continue to provide employment,

perhaps at reduced hours, when production declines. In

addition, the employer may be somewhat afraid of loss of

prestige among his fellow employers, because layoffs might

be interpreted as proof of his failure as businessman. In

Sweden, for example, companies reportedly try greatly to

avoid the weakening of their reputation for job stability,

especially since most major employers are located in small

towns or cities, where company practices are common

knowledge.65

Recognized “regular” employees in Japan benefit

from a paternalistic attitude on the part of employers that

is unmatched by other industrial nations. In large Japanese

enterprises, appointment to a regular job virtually assures

employment until retirement, and the employer takes responsibility for maintaining the worker during periods of

economic adversity.

In most foreign industrial countries, legal and social

restrictions against layoff are reinforced by the reluctance

of workers to change jobs in search of improved wages or

working conditions. In the United States and Canada, labor

turnover rates in manufacturing are significantly higher

than in Western Europe and Japan. The United States and

Canada have approximately 50 to 60 separations (quits,

layoffs, and other job terminations) annually per 100 occupied jobs. European separation rates, in contrast, generally range from 30 to 40 per 100 jobs, and Japanese

separation rates are even lower, under 30 per 100 jobs

annually. Quit rates, where available, show a similar disparity among the United States, Canada, and other industrial nations.

Data on the duration of unemployment indicate that

a larger proportion of U.S. and Australian unemployment

is of the short-term job-changing variety compared with

other countries. However, it is not known to what extent

differences in the proportion of those unemployed for

long periods can be attributed to differences in the duration and level of unemployment benefits.

In the United States, mobility is often considered

a desirable attribute of a worker even though the search

for a new job may entail some unemployment. In contrast,

the job attachment of European and Japanese workers is

much stronger than in the United States, partly because of

the belief that a change of jobs is likely to reflect unfavorably on a worker’s dependability.

Conclusion

Why there has been more unemployment in the

United States than in most Western European countries

and Japan is a question to which there is no simple or universally accepted answer. The foregoing analysis has re6 sJenkins, op. cit., p. 4.

vealed several reasons for differences in unemployment

rates. The relatively rapid increase in the U.S. labor force

has contributed to higher unemployment here. The labor

force in most other countries has grown quite slowly or declined. Teenagers make up a relatively high and growing proportion of the labor force in the United States. This is significant because teenage unemployment is higher than the

overall average in all countries. The teenage labor force has

grown rapidly in the United States while declining in all

countries except Canada and Australia. This decline has

helped keep Western European and Japanese unemployment rates down, but, in the early 1960’s, when teenagers

constituted a larger proportion of the labor force than in

the United States, these countries had substantially lower

unemployment rates than the United States. The small

proportion of the U.S. labor force engaged in agriculture

and the large wage and salary component have also contributed to our higher unemployment rates compared with

most industrial countries.

Cyclical flows of foreign workers to and from certain

European countries help to dampen unemployment increases during recessions. The United States does not have

significant cyclical movements in its foreign labor supply.

In many European countries, strong efforts have been

made to achieve a better distribution of work throughout

the year by reducing seasonal fluctuations in hirings and

dismissals. Government directives and financial incentives

have helped to lower seasonal fluctuations, particularly in

the construction sector. The United States does not exert as

much control over construction scheduling as some other

countries.

Income maintenance arrangements may have an

important impact on unemployment statistics. A comparison of unemployment insurance systems reveals that

most countries now have a fairly broad coverage of the

labor force, a lengthy maximum duration of benefit payments, and benefits which typically replace at least half of

former earnings of the average manufacturing worker. Most

foreign countries provide higher levels of income replacement to the unemployed than the United States, especially

when dependents’ supplements and family allowances are

taken into account. On the other hand, the United States

provides a comparatively long duration of benefits during

times of recession. In some countries, bonuses for quick reemployment and the practice of scaling down benefits

after a certain length of time may provide incentives to find

new jobs more quickly than would otherwise occur. Shorttime payments, “bad weather” compensation, and early retirement arrangements may also serve to avoid statistical

increases in the number of unemployed persons. The underemployment of many workers receiving short-time payments abroad does not show up in the unemployed count.

Some countries have experienced much lower levels

of youth unemployment than the United States. One

reason has been the great deal of student labor force activity

67

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in the United States compared to abroad. Also, European

educational and labor market institutions have tended to

put the masses of youth into training for narrow vocational

specialties while American youth are still continuing general

education. The European system’s emphasis on apprenticeship and vocational training tends to put young people into

stable work-training relationships that discourage mobility.

The prevalence of “lifetime” employment arrangements in

Japan also discourages worker mobility.

Thus, joblessness among youth abroad has been

checked partly because of vocational guidance and industrial training which reduce the frequent job changes and

spells of unemployment characteristic of young persons in

the United States. However, vocational education in Europe

reflects a heavily structured status system for entry into

jobs--the kind of system that has been traditionally rejected

in the United States.66 A firm decision regarding a career at

the age of 15 to 17 is common in Europe. These countries

seem to prefer to structure the early years of work by such

devices as apprenticeship systems, severance pay regulations,

or lifetime contracts, as in Japan. While these devices reduce the level of frictional unemployment, they also reduce

mobility and possibilities for career changes in later life. In

the United States, youth counselors have stressed the importance of extended schooling rather than early career decision because of the wider range of jobs open to persons

with high school diplomas and college degrees.

The threat of layoffs in Europe and Japan is considerably diminished by legal restraints and management’s reluctance to let workers go. Moreover, the worker’s attachment

to the job is firmer abroad than in the United States. Labor

mobility is low, and short-term transitional unemployment

is much less prevalent than in the United States. It is apparent that unemployment in Japan, and to some extent in

certain other industrial countries, is not a threat to the entire body of wage and salary workers, as in the United

States. Rather, it tends to be more concentrated among a

restricted group of temporary or seasonal workers, new

entrants, or others in the process of entering or leaving

the labor force.

6 6Manpower Report o f the President, 1968, p. 117.

The widespread use of short-time benefits in Europe

and Japan and their absence in the United States reflect

different social and cultural patterns. In most European

countries and Japan, there is a traditional preference for

job security as against job mobility; layoffs have ordinarily

meant dismissal and a break in the employer-employee

relationship. In the United States, layoffs are much more

common. When American firms in Europe have attempted

to lay off workers in the postwar years, they have faced

strong adverse reactions because of these differences in

social patterns.

It is evident that the different institutions, attitudes,

and practices of other countries help many of them to

maintain lower average unemployment rates than appear to

be feasible at present in the United States. It can be argued,

however, that at least some of the reasons for the lower unemployment rates in Europe and Japan arise from features

which inhibit efficiency as well as lower unemployment.

For example, while higher labor turnover rates and greater

worker mobility in the United States increase the average

level of unemployment, the job security of the regular

worker in Europe and Japan also involves an appreciable

cost. Unemployment may be less cyclically volatile because

of hoarding of labor during downturns of economic activity,

but the result may be disguised unemployment rather than

overt unemployment. Although foreign employment practices bring advantages in the form of income maintenance

and job security, some of these benefits are probably paid

for by a lower aggregate productivity of labor.

Furthermore, many foreign countries still have a

large proportion of small, family-owned businesses which

shield self-employed and unpaid family workers from the

threat of unemployment. During slack periods, such

workers tend to work part time or withdraw from the labor

force rather than seek another job with pay. In the United

States, the economies of scale that can be realized in a

large, homogeneous market have encouraged business consolidations, so that self-employment and unpaid family

work occur less frequently and the risk of unemployment

is increased. Where small, family-owned businesses are still

predominant, workers may be underemployed a good part

of the time, impairing the efficiency and productivity of

the countries involved.

68

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix A. International Labour Office Definitions

In 1954, the Eighth International Conference of Labour

Statisticians adopted the following definitions of labor

force, employment, and unemployment:

Labor force

The civilian labor force consists of all civilians who fulfill the requirements for inclusion among the employed or

the unemployed, as defined below.

The total labor force is the sum of the civilian labor

force and the Armed Forces.

Employment

1. Persons in employment consist of all persons above

a specified age in the following categories:

a. At work; persons who performed some work for pay or profit during a specified brief period, either one week or one day; b. with a job but not at work; persons who, having • already worked in their present job, were tempor­ arily absent during the specified period because of illness or injury, industrial dispute, vacation or other leave of absence, absence without leave, or temporary disorganization of work due to such reasons as bad weather or mechanical breakdown.

2. Employers and workers on own account should be

included among the employed and may be classified

as “at work” or “not at work” on the same basis as

other employed persons.

3. Unpaid family workers currently assisting in the

operation of a business or farm are considered as

employed if they worked for at least one-third of the

normal working time during the specified period.

4. The following categories of persons are not considered as employed:

a. Workers who during the specified period were on temporary or indefinite layoff without pay; b. persons without jobs or business or farms who had arranged to start a new job or business or farm at a date subsequent to the period of reference; c. unpaid members of the family who worked for less than one-third of the normal working time during the specified period in a family business or farm.

Unemployment

1. Persons in unemployment consist of all persons above

a specified age who, on the specified day or for a specified

week, were in the following categories:

a. Workers available for employment whose contract of employment had been terminated or tempor­ arily suspended and who were without a job and seeking work for pay or profit; b. persons who were available for work (except for minor illness) during the specified period and were seeking work for pay or profit, who were never previously employed or whose most recent status was other than that of employee (i.e. former employers, etc.), or who had been in retirement; c. persons without a job and currently available for work who had made arrangements to start a new job at a date subsequent to the specified period; d. persons on temporary or indefinite layoff without

pay.

2. The following categories of persons are not considered to be unemployed:

a. Persons intending to establish their own business or farm, but who had not yet arranged to do so, who are not seeking work for pay or profit; b. former unpaid family workers not at work and not seeking work for pay or profit.

69

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Sources of Data and Methods of Adjustment: Nine Countries

United States

The United States has three sources of unemployment

statistics. Data based on the number of persons registering

to collect unemployment insurance are available on a weekly

basis. The number of persons served by the U.S„ Employment Service is available monthly. Statistics from the

monthly labor force survey have been available since 1940

and are regarded as the “official” unemployment statistics.

Before the 1930’s, no direct measurements were made of

the number of jobless persons. In response to the increased

need for unemployment statistics during the depression of

the 1930’s, direct surveys of the population were initiated

but the definitions of unemployment—those who were not

working but were willing and able to work—did not meet

the standards of objectivity that many technicians felt

were necessary to measure the level of joblessness at a point

in time or changes over a period of time, in 1940, a set of precise concepts was adopted for the national sample surveys of

households conducted by the Works Progress Administration. Classification of one’s labor force status depended

principally on whether one was working, looking for work,

or engaged in other activities within a designated time

period, In 1943, responsibility for the survey was transferred to the Bureau of the Census. In 1959, responsibility

for the analysis and publication of labor force survey data

was shifted to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with the

Bureau of the Census retaining the responsibility for the

collection and tabulation of the statistics.

Unemployment

Registered unemployment. The United States has two

registered unemployed series: Insured unemployment and

persons registered with the U.S. Employment Service. Insured unemployment represents the number of persons

reporting a week of unemployment under an unemployment

insurance program. It includes some persons who are working part time who would be counted as employed in the

labor force survey. Excluded are persons who have exhausted their benefit rights and workers who have not

earned rights to unemployment insurance. In general, excluded from coverage are those persons engaged in agriculture, domestic service, unpaid family work, selected nonprofit organizations, some State and local government,

and self-employment.

The rate of insured unemployment is the number of

insured unemployed expressed as a percent of average

covered employment. Because of differences in State laws

and procedures under which unemployment insurance programs are operated, State unemployment rates generally indicate, but do not precisely measure, differences in unemployment among the individual States. Figures on unemployment insurance claims are published by the Employment and Training Administration of the Department of

Labor in Unemployment Insurance Claims Weekly Report.

In nonrecessionary periods, unemployed persons receiving benefits under the various State and other unemployment insurance programs typically account for less

than half of total U.S. joblessness. (This ratio has swelled

during downturns to as much as 75 percent.) For this

reason, and as a consequence of administrative changes and

variations from State to State, statistics from unemployment insurance programs are not directly comparable with

data on total unemployment from the Current Population

Survey. However, the unemployment insurance data are

extremely useful as indicators of current change, especially

because they are timely and available on a weekly basis.

The second and less widely used series counts individuals served by the U.S. Employment Service. Monthly

data are available on persons counseled, tested, and/or

placed by the Employment Service. These monthly statistics are published by the Employment and Training

Administration of the Department of Labor in Selected

Services Provided by the United States Employment Service.

Labor force survey unemployment. The monthly household survey—the Current Population Survey (CPS) provides statistics on the civilian noninstitutionalized population 16 years of age and over. Persons under 16 years of age

are excluded from coverage because of child labor laws

and compulsory school attendance. However, separate statistics are collected and published for 14-and 15-year-olds.

The results of the CPS are published monthly by BLS in

Employment and Earnings.

The CPS is currently collected from a probability

sample of approximately 56,000 households. Since July

1955, the reference week of the CPS is the calendar week

including the 12th day of the month. The actual survey is

conducted during the following week, which is the week

containing the 19th day of the month. Prior to July 1955,

the reference week was the calendar week containing the

70

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. Current Population Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

18. LINE NUMBER

19. What was. . . doing most of

LAST WEEK -

I Working

Keeping house

Going to school

or something else?

Working (Skip to 2 0 A )___ WK O

With a job but not at work .. J O

Looking for work ........... . . LK O

Keeping house........................... H O

Going to school.........................S O

Unable to work (Skip to 2 4 ) . . U O

Retired.........................................R O

Other (S p ecify)................... OT O

\

20C. Does. . . USUALLY work 35

hours or more a week at this job?

Yes O What is the reason . . .

worked less than 35

hours LAST WEEK?

No O What is the reason . . .

USUALLY works less

than 35 hours a week?

(Mark the appropriate reason)

Slack work ................................... O

Material shortage.......................... O

Plant or machine repair.............. O

New job started during week . . . O

Job terminated during week . . . O

Could find only part-time work . O

Holiday (Legal or religious)......... O

Labor dispute................................. O

Bad weather................................... O

Own illness .................................... C

On vacation................................... O

Too busy with housework,

school, personal bus., etc. .. O

Did not want full-time work . . . O 

Full-time

work week under 35 hours. . O

Other reason (Specify)................. O

\

(Skip to 23 and enter job worked

at last week)

20. Did . . . do any work at all

LAST WEEK, not counting

work around the house?

(Note: I f farm or business

operator in hh., ask about

unpaid work)

Yes No (Go to 21)

20A. How many hours

did . . . work

LAST WEEK

at all jobs?

0 0

20B. INTERVIEWER

CHECK ITEM

49+ O IS*"” ° item 23)

1 -3 4 O (Go to 20C)

3 5 -4 8 (Go to 20D)

20D. Did . . . lose any time or

take any time off LAST

WEEK for any reason

such as illness, holiday

or slack work?

Yes O How many hours

d id . . .

take off?

(Correct 20A if lost time

not already deducted;

if 20A reduced below 35,

correct 20B and fill 20C;

otherwise, skip to 23.)

No O

20E. Did . . . work any

overtime or at more than

one job LAST WEEK?

Yes O How many extra

hours did . . . work?

(Correct 20A and 20B as

necessary if extra hours

not already included and

skip to 23.)

(Skip to 23)

21. ( If J in 19, skip to 21 A.)

Did . . . have a job or

business from which he

was temporarily absent or

on layoff LAST WEEK?

Yes O No

__________

I

(Go to 22)

21 A. Why was. . . absent from

work LAST WEEK?

Own illness......... O

Bad weather. . . O

Labor dispute. . . O 

New job to begin (Skip to

within 30 days O 22Band

Temporary layoff 22C2)

(Under 30 days) O ; (Skjp

Indefinite layoff (

(30 days or more or O J * 2 tJ )

no def. recall date)

Other (Specify) . . O

\

21B. Is . . . getting wages or

salary for any of the time

off LAST WEEK?

Y e s ................ O

N o ................... O

Self-employed O

21C. Does. . . usually work

35 hours or more a week

at this job?

Yes O 

No O n

(Skip to 23 and enter job

held last week)

OFFICE USE ONLY

OCCUPATION

0 0 A 0 0 0 0 N G

T I B o 1 I T P O

3 C C o G c G Q O

3 3 D o 3

p 3 R O

G ° r E o c 'r C-, ° r S o

3 5 F o 5 5 5 T o

G 6 G o 6 G G U o

? 21 H o ? ? V o

3 I J o 3 w Q

O) O, C K o G G X G

L o Y O

Ref. o M o Ref. O z 0

22. ( If LK in 19, Skip to 22A.)

Has . . . been looking for work

during the past 4 weeks?

Yes : No C. (Go to 24)

22A. What has. . . been doing in the last

4 weeks to find work? (Mark all

methods used; do not read list.)

Checked , . ,~ wjth _ pub. employ, agency ^

pvt. employ, agency O

employer directly . . G

friends or relatives. . O

Placed or answered ads..................... G

Nothing (Skip to 2 4 )................ .. O

Other (Specify in notes, e.g., GET A,

union or prof, register, e tc .)......... G

22B. Why did . . . start looking for tmm

work? Was it because . . . lost

or quit a job at that time (pause)

or was there some other reason?

Lost jo b ............................ O

Quit jo b ............................ O

Left school....................... O

Wanted temporary work G

Other (Specify in notes) . O

22C. 1) How many weeks 0

has. . . been m

looking for work? ~ J TM

2) How many weeks ^ ^

ago did . . . start ^

looking for work? ^ r

3) How many weeks ? ?

ago was. . . laid G G

off? G G

22D. Has. . . been looking for full-time or

part-time work? g g

Full G Part C #

22E. is there any reason why . . . could

not take a job LAST WEEK?

Yes G f Already has a job . . . . G

■A 1 Temporary illness .... 1

j Going to school............ ..

No O ■ Other (Specify in notes) O

22F. When did . . . last work at a full-time

job or business lasting 2 consecutive

weeks or more?

Withir last 12 months (Specify)......... G

(Month)

One to five years ago .......................... _

More than 5 years ago .......................

Nev. worked full-time 2 wks or more G

Never worked at a ll..............................

(SKIP to 23. I f layoff entered in 21 A, enter

job, either full or part time, from which laid

off. Else enter last full time civilian job

lasting 2 weeks or more, or "never worked.")

24. INTERVIEW ER CHECK ITEM ,

Unit in rotation group: --------

(Mark one circle only)

O 2, 3. 4, 6, 7 or 8 (End questions)

O 1 or 5 (Go to 24A)

24A. When did . . . last work for pay at a

regular job or business, either full- or

part-time?

Within past 12 months G j

1 up to 2 years ago .

2 up to 3 years ago.

3 up to 4 years ago .

4 up to 5 years ago •

5 or more years ago

Never worked . . .

> (Go to 24B)

J

/(Skip to 24C)

24B. Why did . . . leave that job?

Personal, family

(Incl. pregnancy) or school .

H e alth .......................................

Retirement or old age..............

Seasonal job completed.........

Slack work or business conditions

Temporary

nonseasonal job completed . . . G

Unsatisfactory work

arrangements (Hours, pay, etc.)

O th er................................................. C

24C. Does. . . want a regular job now, either

full- or part-time?

Y es............................

Maybe — it depends

(Specify in notes)

N o..............................

Don't know ............

2 (Go to 24 D)

> (Skip to 24E)

24D. What are the reasons. . . is not looking

for work?

(Mark each reason mentioned)

• Believes no work

available in line of work or area C

Couldn't find any work ..............

Lacks nee, schooling,

training, skills or experience .

Employers

think too young or too old. . .

Other pers. handicap in finding job

Can't arrange child c a re ...................

Family responsibilities.....................

In school or other training ..............

Ill health, physical disability............

Other (Specify in notes) ............

Don't know .....................................

24E. Does. . . intend to look for work of any

kind in the next 12 months?

Y e s ........................................

It depends (Specify m notes)

N o ...................................

Don't know.........................

( If entry in 24B, describe job in 23)

23. DESCRIPTION OF JOB OR BUSINESS

23A. For whom did . .. work? (Name o f company, business, organization or other employer.)

23B. What kind of business or industry is this? (For example: TV and radio mfg., retail shoe store, State Labor Dept., farm.)

23C. What kind of work was . . . dping? (For example: electrical engineer, stock clerk, typist, farmer.)

23D. What were . . ,'s most important activities or duties? (For example: types, keeps account books, files, sells cars, operates

printing press, finishes concrete.)

23E. Was this person

An employee of PRIVATE Co.,

bus., or individual for wages, salary or comm. . . . P O

A FEDERAL government employee.............................. F G

A STATE government employee..................................... S O

A LOCAL government em ployee................................... L O

Self-ernpl. in OWN bus., prof, practice, or farm

f Y es ................... I O

Is the business incorporated? < ,

\ No (or farm) . . SE G

Working WITHOUT PAY in fam. bus. or fa r m .........WP O

NEVER W O R K E D ....................................................... NEV O

71

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8th day of the month. All interviewing, either by personal

visit or telephone call, is done by trained interviewers.

In the CPS, unemployed persons include those who

did not work at all during the survey week, were looking

for work, and were available for working during the reference period except for temporary illness. Those who had

made specific efforts to find work within the preceding 4-

week period, such as by registering at a public or private

employment agency, writing letters of application, canvassing for work, being on a union or professional register,etc.,

are considered to be looking for work. Also included as

unemployed are those who did not work at all during the

survey week, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been

laid off, or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or

salary job scheduled to start within the following 30 days.

Full-time students looking for part-time work are counted

as unemployed if they meet the above criteria.

Although there have been improvements in measurement techniques, the concepts of employment and unemployment have remained essentially the same since the

initiation of the national sample survey in 1940. Two minor

changes have been made in the concepts and definitions

used in determining labor force status. The first change occurred in 1957. As a result of a comprehensive interagency

review of the employment and unemployment data, two

groups which had been previously classified as “employed,

with a job but not at work,” were reclassified as unemployed. These two groups were (1) persons who were laid

off for a definite period of less than 30 days (persons on

layoff for 30 days or longer were already classified as unemployed), (2) persons waiting to report to a new wage or

salary job scheduled to begin within 30 days, except for

those attending school during the survey week, who are

classified as not in the labor force. When these two groups

were reclassified, data for all major labor force components

were adjusted to the new definition for every month back

to January 1947.

The second change in the definitions of employment

and unemployment occurred in 1967, following the recommendations of the President’s Committee to Appraise

Employment and Unemployment Statistics (the Gordon

Committee). The Gordon Committee recommended that

more information be gathered and published on participants in the labor force and that labor force concepts be

clarified. After more than a year of testing the new definitions clarifying labor force survey concepts, the labor

force survey questionnaire was revised in January 1967.

The principal changes in the survey were: 1

1. The lower age limit on employment, unemployment, and other labor force concepts was raised from 14 to 16 years. This change reflects the fact that most 14- and 15-year-olds are barred from most occupations by child labor laws. Historical data were revised as far as possible to provide a consistent series based on the population 16 years of age and over.

2. To be counted as unemployed, a person must be currently available for work (except for temporary illness). In the past, there was no test of current availability. The revision primarily affected the classi­ fication of students who began seeking work during the school year, but were not available to begin work until the end of the term. Previously, they were in­ cluded in the unemployed; now they are classified as not in the labor force. 3. To be counted as unemployed, a person must have re­ ported a specific jobseeking activity (applying to an employer, going to a private or public employment agency, answering a want ad) within the past 4 weeks. (An exception is made for persons waiting to start a new job in 30 days or waiting to be recalled from lay­ off.) Formerly, the labor force survey questionnaire was ambiguous as to the time period for jobseeking, and there was no specific question regarding methods of looking for work. Persons who would have looked for work except for the belief that no work was avail­ able-discouraged workers—were previously theoreti­ cally included in the unemployed but are now classi­ fied as not in the labor force. 4. Persons with a job are classified as employed, even if they were absent from their jobs during the survey week and looking for other jobs. Before, persons absent from work because of strikes, bad weather, etc., but looking for other jobs were counted as un­ employed.

The removal of 14- and 15-year-olds from the labor

force survey reduced employment by 1 million and unemployment by 60,000, but had no measurable effect on the

unemployment rate. Except for raising the lower age limit

of the CPS coverage, the historical data were not revised to

take into account the other changes in the survey since the

differences between the old and new series were on the

borderline of statistical significance. In only a few detailed

series were there significant differences between the two

surveys. However, it was not considered technically feasible

to revise any of the historical statistics on the basis of a

single year of data.

Labor force

According to CPS definitions, the civilian labor force

comprises all civilians 16 years of age and over classified as

either unemployed or employed. The total labor force includes, in addition, members of the Armed Forces stationed

either in the United States or abroad. Information on the

size of the Armed Forces is obtained from official records

of the Department of Defense.

The definition of the unemployed was discussed

above. The employed comprise (1) all those who, during

the survey week, did any work at all as paid employees, or

in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or

who worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in a family-operated enterprise and (2) all those who did not work

but had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily

absent due to illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management dispute, or various personal reasons-whether or not

they were seeking other jobs.

72

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Unemployment rate

The unemployment rate represents the number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. This measure is also computed for various worker groups by sex,

age, race, industry, occupation, etc., and for combinations

of these characteristics.

Quarterly and monthly estimates

For the United States, the seasonally adjusted quarterly and monthly unemployment rates are those published

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its monthly publication,

Employment and Earnings. At the beginning of each calendar year, the BLS revises the seasonal adjustment factors

for unemployment and other labor force series from the

CPS to take into account data from the previous year. Until

full-year data are available, the seasonal adjustment factors

are based on data through the prior year.

Since 1973, the Census Bureau’s X-l 1 method1 has

been used to seasonally adjust the labor force data. For

most series, the computation is based upon the most recent

10-year period. Prior to 1975, BLS assumed that the magnitude of the seasonal increase or decrease was proportional

to the level of the series and, therefore, used the multiplicative version of the X -ll program exclusively in adjusting the employment and unemployment series. It was

found that this procedure did not adequately allow for

changes in seasonal patterns during periods of sharply

changing unemployment. This problem was highlighted in

May-June 1975 when large numbers of teenagers left school

and entered the labor force. Since this flow tends to be

fairly constant and relatively independent of the level of

joblessness in any year, the additive option of the X-l 1 was

better suited to seasonally adjust the teenage unemployment series. Consequently, BLS revised its seasonal adjustment procedures. Currently, seasonality for teenage unemployment and for other unemployment series of which

teenagers are the primary components are adjusted using

the additive procedure of the X-l 1 method. All other

series are adjusted using the multiplicative procedure.

After the components of a series are seasonally adjusted, the values are aggregated to provide seasonally adjusted values for other series. For example, the unemployment rate for all civilian workers is derived by dividing the

estimate of total unemployment (the sum of 4 seasonally

adjusted age-sex components) by the civilian labor force

(the sum of 12 seasonally adjusted age-sex components).

Canada

Canada has three sources of unemployment statistics,

only one of which is widely used. Data based on registra1 For a detailed description of the X-l 1 method, see Technical

Paper No. 15, The X -ll Variant o f the Census Method II Seasonal

Adjustment Program, by Julius Shiskin, Alan Young, and John

Musgrave, 1967 revision (Bureau of the Census, 1967).

tions for unemployment insurance benefits, registrations

for employment at Canadian Manpower Centres, and labor

force surveys are all available on a monthly basis. Following

the report of a ministerial committee on unemployment

statistics in August 1960, the results of the labor force survey have been regarded as the “official” Canadian unemployment series. No adjustments have been made in the

official Canadian data since they are very close in concept

to the U.S. figures.

Unemployment

Registered unemployed. Canada has two series of registered

unemployed statistics. The first consists of monthly counts

of unemployment insurance claimants and beneficiaries.

The second, and less widely used series, is a count of registrations for employment at the Canada Manpower Centres

(CMC). Most persons filing a claim for unemployment insurance benefits are requested to register with CMC. CMC

receives notices of vacancies from employers all across the

country and tries to match registrants with vacancies. No

unemployment rates are published based on these administrative data.

Data on unemployment claimants and beneficiaries

are published monthly by Statistics Canada in the Statistical Report on the Operation o f the Unemployment Insurance Act. Data on registrations at the Canada Manpower

Centres are published in Statistics Canada’s Canada Manpower Review.

Labor force surveys. The labor force survey, conducted by

Statistics Canada, was introduced as a quarterly survey in

1945 and converted to a monthly survey in November 1952.

Statistics are published monthly in The Labour Force.

In 1972, a major project was begun to revise the survey to embrace a number of substantial statistical refinements, to collect new data, and to ask more specific questions on labor force status. Throughout 1975, the former

and revised surveys were conducted in parallel to enable an

analysis of the differences between the two surveys over a

12-month period and to develop a revised historical series.

After the December 1975 survey, the old survey was discontinued. The new Canadian survey is very close in concepts to the United States survey; therefore, no adjustments

are required for comparability with U.S. definitions.

The reference period for the monthly labor force

survey is usually the week containing the 15th of the month.

All interviewing, either by telephone call or personal visit,

takes place the following week, The survey is currently

based on a sample of approximately 55,000 households.

The sample was designed to represent all persons 14 years

of age and over residing in Canada, except for residents of

the Yukon and Northwest Territories, persons living on Indian Reserves, inmates of institutions, and full-time members of the Armed Forces. The number of persons excluded

amounts to approximately 2 percent of the population 14

73

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
LABOUR FORCE SCHEDULE - Complete a schedule for every membei of the household 14 years of age or ov*»r.

Canadian Survey Questionnaire Used Prior to 1976

1. Primary Sampling Unit_____ 2. Segment Number J. Listing Number______ 4. Line No.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Primary Sampling Unit

- O ' ==!== :2 -: =3== - A - - z z& z z z& z -7=- ZZQZZ ZZQZZ

r 0 :r r:f r: 2 -- r 3 r:

- n - - zz^zz ZZ&ZZ = 7== ZZQZZ -z & z

-O'- =3-- -2 ” =3” - A " Z ^ zz z ^ z z .^ r .z -z & z

-0-= :-l -- =2- =3" - A " zz$zz zz & z z z r - z ZZQZZ zzgzz

=<>== :2 r: =3-" zzQzz =«== ZZ$Z2 z ^ z z zz & z ZZQZZ

Segment Number

-t> - - - I " - 2 '- =3== ZZQZ - 3 ^ ZZQZZ ZZZJZZ -ZQZZ ZZQZ

z & z - - I -- :2 :I =3== -A= =«== zzr-z -Q r-- ZZQZZ

-T£- z z \z z ZZ2ZZ zz#: ZZQZZ z^ r.z zzQzz -ZQZ

Listing Number

-O -- -T -- Z2 - - - 3 z z # - 3 -- ZZQZZ ZZfZZ - Q z - z^zz

- x y z ==l== - 2 -- -A- =3-= ZQ-Z z ? z z - Q z z ZQZZ

-0== z z \z z - 2 -- ^ 3 " ZZ# -QZZ z ? z z -QZZ -Q -Z

z:Ozz 2Z\ ZZ z ^ z z = 3 - - A - = 3 ~ ZQZZ z ? z z - Q z z - Q z z

Line Number

-O '- -:l " 2 " z z # =3== -QZZ ZZfZZ -Q -Z ZZQZZ

=o== -2 -- : 3 :: ZZ#. z ^ z z ZQZZ ZZf-Z - Q - - -ZQZ

7. Sex

Male Female

8. Marital Status

Single Married Other

9. Relationship to Head of Household

Head Wife

Son or

daughter

Son-in-law

Daughter-in-law

Other

relative

Roomer

Boarder Employee Other

10. Age

ZQZZ ;:l - “ =2== :3 " z-# z z ^ z z ZQZZ - Q z - --Q Z

z X>zz ==!== =2== :3 " z z # z ^ z z ZQZZ zir-z - Q z z -QZZ

11. MAJOR AC TIVITY

What did this person do mostly last week?

Worked

_ = W==

Looked

for

work

- L ' -

Had

a job

but not

at work

ZZJZZ

Permanently

unable

to work

Z^JZZ

Kept

house -M"

Went

to

school

Retired or

voluntarily

idle

z ^ z z

Other

DTfF

12. SECONDARY A C TIVITY

-- Did this person do anything else last week?

Had

Looked a job Went Retired or Did

tor but not Kept to voluntarily nothing

Worked work at work house school idle Other else

=W== z ^ z z z - j - z =«== =3” DTIF

FOR "W"JN 11 OR 12 ASK

13. How many hours did this person work last week?

z z \z z z Q z z z ^ z z z Q z z z Q z z z:

z & z z z \z z .Q z z z Q z z z-A zz ::

6 ^ : - 7 - -

Q zz Z^fZZ ZZQZZ ZQZZ

FOR " L " IN 11 OR 12 ASK

14. For how many months has this person been looking 15. Did this person look

for work? for full time or part

Under ! 1 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 1 2 1 3 -1 8 19 or more time work last week?

Pull time Part time

5. Surname______________________Given name______________________ 6. Survey

_________ FOR "W", "L" OR "J" IN 11 OR 12 ASK____________

16. For whom did this person work? name of firm, government agency or person

17. INDUSTRY In what kind of business or industry did this person work?

18. OCCUPATION What kind of work did this person do in this industry?

19. To what class of worker did this person belong?

WORKED FOR OTHERS OWN BUSINESS, FARM OR PROFESSION

Paid Unpaid With Without

worker family worker paid help paid help

FOR 1-34 HOURS IN 13 OR "J" IN 11 OR 12 ASK

20. Does this person usually work 35 hours or more at his present job?

No Yas | ASK 23 l

21. IF "N O " IN ' - P Would this person prefer to work 35 hours or more?

20 ASK

No Yes

22. IF "YES" IN 21 ASK ^ — ► Why doesn't this person usually work

35 hours or more each week?

Age or Went

Household physical to Other

responsibilities disability school (Specify below)------_

IF "YES" IN 20 OR "J" IN 11 OR 12 ASK

23. Why did this person work less than the usual number o f hours last week?

Lost Found

job job Temp- Working Other

Bad Public Labour during during orary short- (Specify

Illness weather Vacation holiday dispute week week layoff time above)

--- --- -- --- ::::: ::::: ::::: - - - - - ::::::

ACTIVITY LAST MONTH

24. MAJOR A C TIV ITY

What was this person doing the week ending......... ....?

Had

Looked a job

for but not

Worked work et work

Permanently

unable

to work

Kept

house

Went

to

school

Retired or

voluntarily

idle Other

ZtyZZ ZZLZZ ZZJZZ - V - z ^ p z - 3 ” ZZ&Z DTH=

25. SECONDARY A C TIV ITY

Did this person do anything else that week?

Had

Looked a job

for but not

Worked work at work

Kept

house

Went

to

school

Retired or

voluntarily

idle Other

Did

nothing

else

z y z z z ± z z z z jz z

26. Was this person interviewed? No Yes

74

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Docket No. 2 1__ ^ | Survey dais 3 ; | ; A

HflD page - iine No Gwen name Mo v’

s e n e r ~ ~ ~ ~ :

Canadian Survey Questionnaire Used from 1976 Onward

* Authority - Act Chapter 18,

Statute*, of Canada 1970 - /1 - 72.’

1 FORM NO.05

1 Q 010 . . . DO ANY WOflK AT ALL LAST WEEK"

{not counting work around th# houao)?

Yea ’O No2 o * to 30

Perm. unaMe to work 3 ^ 3 to

¥ T 'w i T 7 7 7 H A ^ m o r e~t h a n o n e jo b la st

* WEEK?

Ye* ?0 No 2 O Gc *° 13

3 0 LAST WEEK, DID . . . HAVE A JOB AT WHICH

^ KE/SHE DID NOT WORK?

Ye* 1 Go to 33 No2

3 1 LAST WEEK, WD~

" a y jl rvcciiaLia-rtt r* a

1 9 WAS THIS A RESULT O f CHANGING

EMPLOYERS LAST WEEK? . 2

Ye* ’ ( J No 20

O O COUNTING FROM THE END OF LAST WEEK.

iN HOW MANY WEEKS WILL . . . START TO

4 3 HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK DOES

USUALLY WORK AT HIS/HER:

{Mam) JOB?

Other

[T

job*? P 'l "| 90 to

If total

30 or more

3 3 WHY WAS .

WEEK?

4 WHAT IS THE REASON . , . USUALLY WORKS

LESS THAN 30 HOWS PER WEEK?

34 om * WEEK?

€nter

coda

3 5 HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK DOES .

^ USUALLY WORK AT HIS/HER:

1 5 LAST WEEK. HOW MANY HOURS O f OVERTIME

OR EXTRA HOURS DID . . . WORK?

i include paid end unpaid

tuna at ail jobs) * m :enter 00

% 3 LAST WEEK, HOW MANY HOURS DID . .. LOSE

* W OR TAKE OFF FROM WORK FOR ANY REASON

SUCH AS ILLNESS, HOLIDAY, OR LAYOFF?

{Front ai! j o b s } ______

V none enter 00 and

m : , te

1 7 WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON FOR LOSING 3 © IS . . . GETTING ANY WAGES OR SALARY FOR

THESE HOURS? r___, r ANY OF THE TIME OFF LAST WEEK?

| J enter coda Yes 1Q No 2 Q

1 3 HOW MANY HOURS DID . . . ACTUALLY WORK

LAST WEEK AT HIS/HER:

"1 l !

I Q IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS, HAS

ANOTHER JOB?

•o

. LOOKED FOR

O g° to71

2 ( j WHAT HAS . . . DONE IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS

W TO RND ANOTHER JOB?

inter codefs)

and go to 71

70 INTERVIEWER CHECK ITEM :

BO1

. HAVE A JOB TO START

AT A DEFINITE DATE IN THE FUTURE?

51

ves 1 ( 3 Ho t ( 3 G o to SO

52 INTERVIEWER CHECK ITEM:

WORK AT HIS/HER NEW JOB?

m

Co to SO

. ABSENT FROM WORK LAST

, enter coda

j end If code U ; > go to 32

5 3 ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK DID .

AT THAT JOB?

HAVE MORE THAN ONE JOB LAST

Yas ’ O 2 O

5 4 WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON WHY . . . LEFT THAT JlOB? j | Enter code

(Main) JOB?

Other jobs?

30 or more

go to 37

5 5 INTERVIEWER CHECK ITEM: 1 _

• if “pertr. unable to war*" in 10 \_ J go to 80

• Otherwise 2 £ ) go to 89

3 5 WHAT IS THE REASON . . USUALLY WORKS

LESS THAN 30 HOURS PER I-----1 , , .

WEEK? [ _ J Bnt9r ' * *

3 7 UP TO THE END OF LAST WEEK, HOW MANY

WEEKS HAS . . . BEEN CONTINUOUSLY ABSENT

FROM WORK? r—-r-— 1

39 INTERVIEWER CHECK ITEM :

If coda 5 (layoff) in 33 ’ O go to 88

• Otherwise 2 go to 40

4 0 IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS, HAS . . . LOOKED FOR

ANOTHER JOB?

Yes ■ o No C) Go to 71

4 1 WHAT HAS . . . DONE IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS

TO FIND ANOTHER JOB?

□ □ □

Enter codeia)

end go to 71

. . . EVER WORKED?

i ” ' O j o

[

LAST WORK AT A JOB OR BUSINESS?

, /month unknown

4-

• if lest worked before j

* Otherwise................. " S 8 : :

□ > ’O

. . WORK

!4ime 2Q

5 0 IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS HAS . . LOOKED FOR WORK?

Y«* ’ Q No 2 0 00 *° 70

157• IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS WHAT HAS

WORK? Mark alt methods reported

. DONE TO FIND

Nothing Go to 63

• IN THE PAST # WEEKS HAS . . DONE ANYTHING ELSE

TO FIND WORK? Mark all other methods reported

For each method given ask

• WHEN DtO . , LAST._________________ ?

(Repeat method)

PRIVATE employment AGENCY .

U N IO N.....................................

EMPLOYERS directly . 

FRIENDS or relatives .

Placed or snswered ADS..

DESCRIPTION OF MAIN JOB OR BUSINESS

* If “No" inevar worked) in 60 !o go to 80

* if last worked before.................................. ...............

* Otherwise ■ o go to 72 through 78 and check that the information is complete and correct

'I___ L _L_ “Or

71 HAS

Yes

. CHANGED EMPLOYERS SINCE LAST MONTH?

Check $

complete and correct

1 /""’A Enter new information for

W 72 through 78 O

 Check Chat information in 72 through 78 is

o

7 2 WHOM DID . . . WORK? IName of business, government dept or agency, or person)

r

Method ago (exci.

* o - ••”o T

0 - - 0 ‘ O . . . Q

* o -

“O - - a ■ O'

•0 -

•0 ...- • n

5 3 WHAT WAS . . . DOING IMMEDIATELY BEFORE HE/SHE

STARTED TO LOOK FOR WORK? FOR EXAMPLE, WORKING,

KEEPING HOUSE. GOING TO SCHOOL

OR SOMETHING ELSE

5 3 UP TO THE END OF LAST WEEK. HOW MANY WEEKS HAS

. . . BEEN LOOKING FOR WORK? j....- j...- j

0 0 HAS . . . BEEN LOOKING FOR A JOB TO LAST FOR LESS

THAN 6 MONTHS, OR, MORE THAN 6 MONTHS?

loss than 6 months find 6 mos.) ’ O More than 6 months ‘O

------! ' 5 1 ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS OF WORK PER WEEK

j j HAS . . . BEEN ------------------

‘- Q L changa j—

[_

LOOKING FOR? □ I F s r o s r o

73' START WORKING FOR THIS EMPLOYER?

for]

1 I A 9 INTERVIEWER CHECK ITEM:

/""'v

-------- V j go to 64

Qlj*i*-**-~

T

_ L

N° [ ] i

change

I f month unknown

enter - in month

5 3 WAS THERE ANY REASON WHY

WORK LAST WEEK?

7 4 WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS. INDUSTRY OR SERVICE WAS THIS? (Give fuU description e.g„

paper-box manufacturing, retail shoe stone, municipal board of educationi

1If ”1 week ago~ for any method in 87

2

* Otherwise

DID NOT LOOK FOR

Enter coda

5 4 WAS THERE ANY REASON WHY

JOB LAST WEEK?

COULD NOT TAKE A

Enter code end

go to 70

*"Q L change (

E " >

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY

0 0 LAST WEEK. WAS . , . ENROLLED IN A SCHOOL. COLLEGE,

OR UNIVERSITY? ^ ^ v®s 1 O Ho 2 O Go to ®°

7 5 WHAT KIND OF WORK WAS . . . DOING? (Give fuH description: e.g., posting invoices,

' selling shoes, teaching primary school)

n

change

0 1 WAS . . . ENROLLED AS A FULL-TIME OR A PART-TIME

STUDENT? Ftdl- 1 /~ \ Part 2

time V - / time '—)

82 WHAT KIND OF SCHOOL WAS THIS?

L >

INFORMATION SOURCE

I

\

the above information

70 Class of worker: Main job 77 Other job

Last | ( | Tha |

interview 1 1 I interview 1

I | N0O 1 I \Enter

|____ | change G?!l) |__j code

Q 1

N od i _| j Enter

change !__j code

\ Q 1 Was this information provided over the telephone?

Yes 1 O No 2 O

75

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
years of age and over. Although the revised labor force survey collects data on persons 14 years of age and over, the

official labor force and unemployment data refer to persons

15 years of age and over.

Since compulsory education ends at age 15 or 16 in

Canada, no adjustment is necessary. In the former labor

force survey, the official lower age limit was 14. Under the

former survey, Canadian statistics were adjusted by BLS to

exclude the 14-year-olds.

The unemployed include all persons who, during the

reference week, were in any of the following categories:

(1) Without work and had actively looked for work in the

past 4 weeks and available for work; (2) been on layoff for

6 months or less and were available for work; or (3) had not

actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks but had a new

job to start in 4 weeks or less and were available for work.

In order to determine labor force status, the interviewer asks a series of specific, direct questions designed to

provide precise and comprehensive information about labor

force activities and characteristics. The interviewer asks,

“Did . . . do any work at all last week, not counting work

around the house?”; “Last week, did . . . have a job at

which he/she did not work?” ; “In the past four weeks what

has . . . done to find work?” ; “Was there any reason why

. . . could not take a job last week?” In the former survey,

more general questions were asked: “What did . .. do mostly

last week?”; “Did . . . do anything else last week?” While

these questions led to a straightforward distinction among

persons who are employed, unemployed, or not in the labor

force, they were not suited for detailed probing, particularly on the characteristics of persons near the margins of

the three basic labor force categories.

Specific questions regarding availability for work in

the reference week are now asked and some persons who

were unemployed under the old survey would not have met

the availability requirements of the revised survey. For example, full-time students looking for full-time work are

automatically considered not available for work in the reference week according to the revised labor force survey.

However, full-time students seeking part-time work are regarded as available (unless they report otherwise) and, if

the other criteria are met, are included among the unemployed.

Persons on layoff with instructions to return to work

within 30 days of the layoff—the temporarily laid off—were

classified as unemployed in the former survey. Ail others

on layoff were classified as unemployed if they stated that

they would have looked for work in the reference week except that they expected to be recalled to their former jobs.

However, no questions on this point were asked of these

persons and, unless they had volunteered the information

that they expected to be recalled, they were classified as

not in the labor force.

In the revised survey, persons on layoff for less than

26 weeks are classified as unemployed. Those who have

been laid off for more than 26 weeks are classified as unemployed if they looked for work in the previous 4 weeks.

Otherwise, they are classified as not in the labor force. In

both surveys then, persons on layoff expecting to return to

work are classified as unemployed. The distinguishing feature is that the revised survey is able to identify persons on

layoff with greater precision due to direct questioning, and

to record additional information about such persons, such

as the duration of the layoff. In the United States, there is

no time limit after which laid-off workers waiting to be recalled to work must look for another job to be counted as

unemployed.

Canadians waiting to start a new job were not identified separately in the former survey, and, as a result, generally were classified as unemployed or not in the labor

force, depending on whether or not they reported that they

were looking for work. A small number could also have

been classified as employed and included among the “had a

job but not at work” category. In the revised survey, they

are unemployed if their new job is to start within 4 weeks

of the end of the reference period. If the job is to start in

more than 4 weeks from the end of the reference period,

they are classified as unemployed only if they also looked

for work. This is similar to the U.S. practice.

Persons without jobs who stated they would have

looked for work except for certain conditions—discouraged

workers—were formerly classified as unemployed. However,

there was no specific question on this point, and the information on discouragement had to be volunteered. In the revised survey and in the United States survey, discouraged

workers are considered as not in the labor force.

On the basis of these more detailed questions, aggregate unemployment rates were revised downward slightly.

In 1975, the jobless rate was revised from 7.0 percent to

6.9 percent. While the total difference was slight, there

were substantial differences in the estimates by sex and

region. In the revised survey, unemployment was significantly higher for women and lower for men. In 1975, the

unemployment rate for women was 6.4 percent according

to the old survey and 8.1 percent according to the new survey. Female joblessness was formerly understated since

women tended to respond to the question,“What did . . .

do mostly last week?” in terms of household or other nonlabor force activities. The more specific wording of the revised questionnaire revealed that many of these women

were unemployed.

Lower unemployment estimates for men (6.2 percent

versus 7.4 percent in 1975, with differences concentrated

in winter and spring), result mainly from differences in the

manner in which the new survey identifies and classifies

persons who have not actively sought work.

Labor force

The labor force is composed of all persons who, during the reference week, were employed or unemployed. The

76

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employed in € anada include all persons who, during the

reference week, were in any of the following categories:

(1) Did any work for pay or profit; (2) did any unpaid family work which contributed directly to the operation of a

farm, business, or professional practice owned or operated

by a related member of the household; or (3) had a job but

were not at work due to illness, disability, personal or family responsibilities, bad weather, labor dispute, or vacation.

With the introduction of the current labor force survey, the methods used to measure employment and unemployment were revised, although the concepts remained

essentially the same. These revisions have brought the Canadian questionnaire closer to that of the United States.

There were a few differences between the former Canadian

survey and the United States survey, but most have disappeared with the introduction of the revised Canadian

survey„ Under the old survey, to be counted as employed,

Canadian farm housewives had to work more than 20

hours in the survey week, but there was no minimum of

hours worked for other unpaid family workers. The revised

survey, using more specific questions to identify work activities, contains no restrictions on farm housewives or

other unpaid family workers. In the United States, unpaid

family workers must work 15 hours or more during the

survey week to be counted as employed. However, the

difference in treatment of unpaid family workers working

less than 15 hours is probably insignificant.

In the former Canadian survey, a small number of

persons with a job but who were not at work and also looked

for work in the reference week were classified as unemployed. In the revised survey, as in the U.S, survey, working

takes precedence over looking for work. Thus, these persons are now classified as employed.

The revisions of the survey resulted in slightly higher

employment estimates for women of all age groups (4.4

percent) and men 15 to 24 years (2.8 percent) due to more

precise identification of employment activities. No changes

were made to employment estimates for men 25 years of

age and over.

Unemployment rate

Annual unemployment rates for Canada are calculated by averaging the results of the monthly labor force

surveys. From 1966 onward, unemployment rates based on

the revised definitions of unemployment and employment

have been estimated by Statistics Canada. The rates for

1959-65, however, have not been revised. Labor market

conditions were believed to be too different in this earlier

period to make estimates based on 1975 relationships.

Quarterly and monthly estimates

For Canada, no adjustments are necessary to the

labor force survey data for comparability with U.S. definitions. The seasonally adjusted jobless rates are those published by Statistics Canada in its monthly publication, The

Labour Force.

Statistics Canada uses the X-l 1 Variant of the U.S.

Bureau of the Census Method II seasonal adjustment program to seasonally adjust the labor force survey data. The

multiplicative version is used for some series, the additive

version for other series. Statistics Canada has also experimented with a modification of the X-l 1, known as Statistics Canada X-ll-ARIMA (auto-regressive integrated moving average). Seasonally adjusted estimates of the labor

force, employed, and unemployed are derived by the summation of the appropriate series.

Seasonally adjusted figures have been calculated on a

current basis since January 1975; the seasonal adjustment

program is run each month using data up to and including

the most recent month. At the end of the calendar year,

the seasonally adjusted figures are revised.

Australia

Australia has two sources of unemployment statistics, both of which are widely used. Data based upon

registrations at employment offices are available on a

monthly basis. A quarterly labor force survey, begun in

1964, provides unemployment data in close conformity

with U.S. concepts. Since about 1970, the statistics from

the quarterly survey have been regarded as the “official”

Australian unemployment series by the International

Labour Office. Registrations statistics are released about

2 weeks before publication of the survey data. In addition, because the registrations statistics are on a monthly

basis, they are still used as current labor market indicators

in Australia.

Unemployment

Registered unemployed. These statistics comprise all

persons who were still registered with the Commonwealth

Employment Service (CES) on the Friday nearest the end

of the month, who claimed when registering that they were

not employed, and who were seeking full-time employment,

i.e., 35 hours or more per week. They include persons referred to employers but whose employment was still unconfirmed, and persons who had recently obtained employ

ment without notifying the CES. The statistics are published by the Department of Employment and Industrial

Relations in the Monthly Review o f the Employment Situation.

Separate figures are published for recipients of unemployment benefits. Such benefits are payable only to

persons of limited means. All recipients of benefits must

complete a weekly statement of income, and benefits are

reduced by other income over a specified low level. Recipients of unemployment benefits must also have at least

1 year of residence in Australia immediately before un77

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Australian Population Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

MOST OF LAST WEEK DID ....

WORK AT A JOB OR BUSINESS

OR DO SOMETHING ELSE?

Worked (Go to Q. 10) .... CZ

Had a job but not at work [

(exclude waiting fo start new job)

Looking for work ................

Kept house ......................

Went to school ......................

Retired or voluntarily inactive

Permanently unable to work

(No more questions) ....

Other (Specify on field query

form) ...................................

SD only : Institutionalised

(No more questions) . .

DID .... DO ANY PAID WORK AT

ALL LAST WEEK OR WORK WITHOUT PAY IN A FAMILY BUSINESS?

Yes ....................

No (Go to Q .ll)

10. HOW MANY HOURS DID ....

WORK LAST WEEK AT ALL

JOBS, INCLUDING OVERTIME

AND EXCLUDING TIME OFF?

Note : HOURS

If 01-34 hours, go to Q.12.

If 35 hours and over, r -

go to Q. 23 L

(If "Had a job but not at work ”

in Q.8, ask Q 12j

EVEN THOUGH .... DID NOT

WORK LAST WEEK, DID ....

HAVE ANY JOB, BUSINESS

(OR FARM)?

Yes □ (Ask Q.12)

No (Go to Q. 18) ................ □ »

12. DOES .... USUALLY WORK

LESS THAN 35 HOURS AT

. PRESENT JOB(S)?

Yes Q (Ask Q. 14)

No ( / / Q. 10 not asked, go to

Q.15; otherwise, go to Q.23)

14. WHY DOESN’T .... WORK

LONGER?

No w o r k .................................

All other reasons ....

Note: If Q. 10 not asked, ask Q 15; otherwise, go to Q.23.

15. WHY WAS .... AWAY FROM

WORK LAST WEEK?

Leave or holiday .................[~ J 1

Own illness or injury .... F j 2

Lost job m week .................f ~ l 3

Began job in week .................Q j 4

Bad weather, breakdown, e tc .Q j 5

Laid o ff or on short time: ii

Economic reasons .... 6

Industrial dispute NPE .. F J 7

Industrial dispute PE . . F j 8

On s tr ik e .....................................Q 9

Note :

If Q. 10 not asked and box 5, 6, 7,

8 or 9 above, go to Q. 22B;

otherwise go to Q. 23.

No Qs 16 and 17

18. (If “Looked for work ” in Q.8, ask Q. 19)

HAS ... BEEN LOOKING FOR

WORK AT ANY TIME DURING

THE PAST FOUR WEEKS?

Yes □ (Ask Q. 19)

No (No more questions) 3 "

19 HAS .... BEEN LOOKING FOR

FULL-TIME OR PART-TIME

WORK DURING THE PAST

FOUR WEEKS?

Full-time work .................... J 12

Part-time work . . . . . . . .[ J 13

20. WHEN LOOKING FOR WORK

DURING THE PAST FOUR

WEEKS -

WAS .... REGISTERED WITH

THE COMMONWEALTH

EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

OR OTHER EMPLOYMENT

AGENCY? □ '

DID .... APPLY TO

PROSPECTIVE I

EMPLOYERS IN PERSON? Q 2

DID .... APPLY BY POST I

OR TELEPHONE? [ j 3

D ID .... DO ANYTHING

ELSE?

Active .............................

Non-active ................

(Specify on field query

fo r m )..........................

21 IF .... HAD FOUND WORK IS

THERE ANY REASON WHY ....

COULD NOT HAVE STARTFD

LAST WEEK?

Yes - own temporary

illness or injury

" child care problems

- going to school

- made arrangements to

start a new job;

. preferred to start

in survey week f

. preferred to start

after survey week ["

other reasons

(Specify on field

query form)

No

22A. WHEN DID ..

FOR W ORK1*

BEGIN LOOKING

22B. WHEN WAS .... LAID OFF/WHEN

DID .... GO ON STRIKE'.*

WEEKS AGO

Record whole weeks to end o f survey

Note: m

week. If box 5, 6. 7 or 8 in Q.15

probe whether period 4 weeks or less;

recode if necessary.

Ask for last job in Q.23 to Q.26.

23. WHAT WAS .... OCCUPATION

LAST WEEK?

24. FOR WHOM DID .... WORK LAST

WEEK? (Name/Full Address)

25. IN WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS

OR INDUSTRY DID .... WORK

LAST WEEK?

D 26. LAST WEEK DID .... WORK

FOR AN EMPLOYER FOR

WAGES, SALARY, KIND

E T C ? ..........................................

IN OWtf BUSINESS -

WITH EMPLOYEES? ..

WITH NO EMPLOYEES?

WITHOUT PAY IN FAMILY

B U SIN E S S?.............

Never worked

78

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employment or must intend to reside permanently in

Australia. Seasonal workers are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Labor force surveys. The Australian labor force survey,

conducted by the Australian Bureau o f Statistics, is

similar in concepts and definitions to the U.S. labor force

survey. Revisions in definitions in May 1976 have brought

the Australian survey closely in line with U.S. concepts.

Although there were some differences prior to these revisions, they are not believed to be important enough to

require adjustment. The Australian survey is conducted

quarterly, by means o f personal interviews, in February,

May, August, and November. Until 1972, a 1-percent

sample o f about 40,000 private dwellings and a sample o f

other dwellings (hotels, motels, etc.) were taken. In 1972,

the sample was redesigned based on data from the 1971

Census o f Population. The revised sample consists o f about

30,000 private dwellings and a sample o f nonprivate

dwellings which together represent a sample o f two-thirds

o f 1 percent o f the population o f Australia. Results o f the

surveys are published by the Australian Bureau o f Statistics in The Labour Force.

Interviews are carried out during a period o f 4 weeks,

so that there are 4 survey weeks in each o f the months to

which the survey relates. These 4 weeks are chosen so as to

fall within the limits o f the calendar month or with minimum encroachment into the adjacent months.

As o f May 1976, unemployment estimates have been

based on the revised definition below. Unemployed persons

are now defined as all civilians aged 15 years and over who

either:

a. During the survey week did not work and did not have a job, but could have taken one had it been available, and had been looking for full-time or part- time work in the 4 weeks up to and including the sur­ vey week (including persons who would have been prevented from taking a job in the survey week by their own temporary illness or injury, or by their having made arrangements to start in a new job after the survey week which they would have preferred to start in the survey week); or b, were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off without pay for 4 weeks or less (including the survey week).

The definition o f unemployment prior to May 1976

differed in several respects from the above definition. First,

persons who would have been looking for work but had not

because they believed no work was available—“discouraged

workers”2-w ere included in the unemployed prior to May

1976. However, the Australian survey did not contain a

specific question on discouraged workers; such information

had to be volunteered by the respondent. Discouraged

workers are now excluded from the labor force. Second,

some persons classified as unemployed were not actually

2Called “discouraged jobseekers” in Australia.

able to take a job in the survey week. There is now a test

for current availability o f jobseekers. Third, the period for

jobseeking activities for unemployed persons was limited to

the survey week. Now, a period o f 4 weeks (including the

survey week) is allowed for jobseeking in order to classify

persons as unemployed.

Students actively seeking work are classified as unemployed both in the old and revised surveys. Under the

old survey, special probing into the current availability o f

students was made in the November survey (that is, at

the end o f the school year).

Beginning in February 1975, questions were added

to the survey to ascertain the number o f persons seeking

work during a 4-week period who could have taken a job in

the survey week. Evaluation o f the results o f these new

questions led to the May 1976 revisions in definitions. Although unemployment officially remained on the old definition from February 1975 through February 1976, data

were also published on the new basis for this period. Therefore, BLS has made adjustments to the data going back to

Feburary 1975. The Australian Bureau o f Statistics does

not intend to make historical revisions for the period prior

to February 1975. BLS has not made historical revisions

either. On an annual basis, the difference between the old

and new definitions in 1975 was very sm all-the old definitions produced an average unemployment rate o f 4.3

percent; the new definitions raised the rate to 4.4 percent.

In several survey months, however, the difference was

wider, as indicated by the following tabulation:

Unemployment rate

Old definitions New definitions

February ............. . . . . . 4.6 4.9

M a y ...................... ............... 3.9 4.2

August................... ............. 3.9 4.1

November . . . . . . ............. 4.6 4.5

February . . . . . ............. 4.7 5.0

The unemployment rate for women was also significandy different: 5.7 percent on the old basis and 6.2 percent on the new basis for 1975. The male rate was increased

only marginally, from 3.5 to 3.6 percent.

Labor force

The labor force, under survey definitions, comprises

all civilians 15 years o f age or over who, during the survey

week, were employed or unemployed. Unemployment definitions were discussed above. Employed persons comprise

all who, during the survey week, (a) did any work for pay,

profit, commission, or payment in kind in a job or business or on a farm (including employees, employers, and

self-employed persons); or (b) worked 15 hours or more

without pay in a family business or farm; or (c) had a job,

business, or farm but were not at work because o f illness,

accident, leave, holiday, production holdup due to bad

79

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
weather, plant breakdown, etc., or because they were on

strike. These definitions are identical to U.S. definitions,

and no adjustments are required for comparability with

U.S. concepts.

In the 1971 population census, trainee teachers

(enrolled at government teachers’ colleges and in some

cases enrolled also at other institutions) were for the first

time classified as not in the labor force; since then they

have also been excluded from labor force estimates derived

from the Australian survey. Exclusion of these persons constitutes a break in the series between May and August 1971;

the number of trainee teachers excluded from the labor

force in August amounted to 24,000. This makes no difference in the unemployment rate for Australia.

Unemployment rate

Annual unemployment rates for Australia have been

calculated by averaging the published data for February,

May, August, and November of each year. For 1975 onward, as mentioned above, data based on the new definition

of unemployment have been used.

The Australian labor force survey was initiated in

1964. Unemployment rates for 1959 through 3963 are estimates made by an Australian researcher based on linking

of the survey and registration statistics.3

Quarterly and monthly estimates

For Australia, no adjustments are necessary for comparability with U.S. definitions. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rates are those published by the Australian

Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in their publication, The Labour

Force Survey. Since the Australian labor force survey is

conducted quarterly, no monthly estimates of joblessness

on the labor force survey basis are made.

Every year, the seasonally adjusted statistics are revised to take into account the previous year’s data. The

ABS has adopted for its standard method of seasonal adjustment, the X-11Q (quarterly) Variant of the Census

Method II seasonal adjustment program of the U.S. Bureau

of the Census. Until 1974, a standard multiplicative adjustment was used. This method assumes that the amplitude of

seasonal change is proportional to the level of the series.

Following the rapid rise in the level of unemployment in

1974, this proportional relationship apparently changed

substantially and the X-11Q method was unable to adapt

sufficiently. ABS made an estimate of the effect of the

change in the proportional relationship and applied prior

adjustment factors to the data before seasonally adjusting.

Therefore, the seasonal factors reflect one proportional relationship up to 1974 and another relationship since then.

3 Barry Hughes, “Supply Constraints and Short-term Employment Functions: A Comment,” The Review o f Economics and

Statistics, Number 4,1971, p. 394.

The principal system of labor force statistics in Japan

was patterned after the American system and was installed

with the aid of American experts. Japanese statisticians

have subsequently introduced a number of modifications to

adapt the system better to Japanese needs.

The Japanese labor force survey has been conducted

monthly by the Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Prime

Minister, since September 1946, and currently comprises

a sample of about 76,000 persons residing in 33,000

households. This represents a sampling ratio of about 1

out of every 1,000 persons 15 years old and over. Results

are published by the Bureau of Statistics in the Monthly

Report on the Labour Force Survey.

Adjustment of Japanese labor force data to U.S. concepts is based mainly on the monthly labor force survey. In

September 1967, the survey design was revised and ;.he

enumeration method changed from “self enumeration and

interview” to “self enumeration”—i.e., the labor force survey schedule is now filled in by the respondent rather than

the enumerator. The major data items have been revised

back to 1953 by Japanese authorities based on the new survey design.

Unemployment

The unemployed in the Japanese labor force survey

consist of all persons 15 years of age or over without jobs

who did not work at all during the survey week (the week

ending on the last day of each month) and who:

1. State that they actually sought work during the sur­ vey week; or 2. Were awaiting the results of previous employment applications.

In the Japanese questionnaire, the question 4Was this

person engaged in work at all during the survey week?” has

eight possible answers. One of the following is checked by

the respondent:

1. Engaged mainly in work

2. Engaged partly in work besides attending school

3. Engaged partly in work besides home duties, etc.

4. Had a job but did not work

5. Had no job but seeking one

6. Attending school

7. Engaged in home duties

8. Others

Persons checking response number 5—“had no job

but seeking one”-are classified as unemployed. This response is defined in the explanatory notes accompanying

the survey schedule as follows: “Refers to the person who

had no job but was actually seeking work by answering advertisements in the newspaper, applying at the Public Employment Security Office, etc. Also refers to the person

who is waiting for an answer to an application and is able to

take up a job immediately after he finds one.”

Japan

80

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Japan

Labour Force Survey Schedule

Confidencial

Designated Statistics 

No. 30 (For First month)

Month____Year____

Bureau of Statistics 

Office of the Prime 

Minister

The statistical law, on which this survey is based, prohibits the use of the information 

supplied by you for purposes other than strictly statistical. It is also forbidden that 

enumerators and any other officials who may be engaged in the survey disclose what 

is reported in the schedules. You are, therefore, kindly requested to provide information frankly and accurately.

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING NOTES BEFORE FILLING OUT

All members who usually live in your household 

should be included in this schedule.

Persons who usually live in your household refer 

to those who have been living, or are going to 

live in your household for three months or more 

as of the end of the month.

Persons to be included

* Family members

* Living-in employees

* Persons living in the family without paying 

for room and for meals.

Persons who are temporarily absent from your 

household for travelling or working elsewhere 

shall be reported at their homes if their absent 

period is less than three months, if they have 

been, or are going to be, absent from home for 

three months or more, they shall be enumerated 

at their destination.

In-patients in a hospital shall be repotted at the 

hospital if they have been hospitalized for three 

months or more, if not, they shall be reported 

at their homes.

Special attention should be paid to the following 

cases.

Lodgers

* Lodgers such as roomers and boarders who 

pay room rent should be reported individually 

as a separate household.

* Lodgers living together with their relatives 

should be reported with their relatives as 

one household.

Persons living in dormitories

* Persons living in school dormitories, dormito ries for unmarried employees, etc. should

be reported individually as a separate household.

Columns to fill out

For persons 15 years old and over as of the 

end of the month (26th in December) fill out 

the designated columns entry page on the 

reverse side.

* The household head should be entered in the 

column No. 1.

* Use another schedule, if the number of household members is six or more.

For persons 14 years old and under, fill out 

the columns below.

When entry is over, check if the entry is correct. 

Write the name of the head in the designated 

column, and give this schedule to the enumerator.

In this survey, actual status during the survey i' 

week ending the last day (26th for December) 

of the month should be entered.

For instance, for the person who happened to 

work temporarily during the survey week, the 

entry should be made as regards the work done 

even if he usually does not work. For the 

person who is usually working in an office but 

who was absent from work and assisted his farm 

work during the survey week, the entry should 

be made as regards the farm work.

For persons 14 years old and under | For the baby who is not Xe'

as of the end of the momh (26th for December) named* write “not >et named

Household No. 51 52 53 54 55

1. Name

2. Relationship to

household head

3. Sex 1 Male 1 Male 1 Male 1 Male 1 Male

2 Female 2 Female 2 Female 2 Female 2 Female

Year Year Year Year Year

4. Date of birth Month Month Month Month Month

Day Day Day Day Day

81

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Japan

E n u m eratio n 

d istrict code

T o be filled in by 

th e en u m e ra to r F o r a p e r s o n 1 5 y e a r s o l d a n d o v e r

T o be filled 

in b y th e 

e n u m erato r

H ousehold

code A rea o f cultivated land

N um ber o f 

m em bers o f the 

household

B oth sexes Male Female

1. 2. 3.

50 ares M ore than 10 Less th an 10 ares 

or m ore ares b u t less or w ith o u t cultith an 50 ares vated land

15 years old 

and over

U nder 15

E n te r th e nam es o f p ersons 15 years j N um ber

1 N am e old an d over w ho usually live in your household. 

See th e n o tes o n page 1 for th e persons to be 

included.

R elatio n sh ip W rite as W ife, M other, E ldest son, Wife o f eldest 

to th e lio u se - so n ' D ° m estic servant, Business em ployee, etc. 

h o ld h e a d according to relatio n sh ip to the household 

head.

H ead

3 Sex Circle 1 fo r m ale, o r 2 fo r fem ale 1. Male 2. Fem ale 2. Fem ale 1. Male 2. Fem ale 1. Male 2. Fem ale 2. Female

4 D ate o f b irth Y ear M onth Day Y ear M onth Day Y ear M onth Day Y ear M onth Day Y ear M onth Day

0 0

t o

M arital

sta tu s

Circle an ap p ro p riate n u m b er irrespective o f 

official record.

1. Never m arried

2. M arried

3. W idowed, divorced

1. N ever m arried

2. M arried

3. W idow ed, divorced

1. Never m arried

2. M arried

3. W idow ed, divorced

1. Never m arried 

M arried

3. W idow ed, divorced

1. N ever m arried

2. M arried

3. W idow ed, divorced

6 Was th is p erso n engaged in w o rk a t all d u rin g th® survey w eek ?

W ork m eans any w ork for p ay o r p ro fit d e lu d in g th e w ork 

in a fam ily business o n a farm , in a sto re , and so on.

. 2.

’srs1i l l e*

5. 6. 7. 8.

x £ m O 1. 2.

STEP

F o r a person engaged m ainly in w o rk .... 1 

F o r a person engaged p a rtly in w ork 

besides atte n d in g school, engaging

in hom e du ties, a n d so o n ............... 2 o r 3

F o r a person n o t engaged in w ork

H ad a jo b b u t did n o t w o r k ....................4

H ad n o jo b b u t seeking o n e ..... ............. 5

A tte n d e d school, engaged in hom e 

d u ties an d o th ers ..................... 6, 7 o r 8

Circle an

ap propriate

num ber

3* o 5'vT £ £

S '00 5 ‘

=. o

3 2

®. t »

o £ " ,

Q* S ^ 8

c l l

6 - 2 Seeking a m ain jo b o r a secondary o ne (F o r persons 

w ho circled 5 in c o lu m n 6)

Seeking a m ain job ............... 1 J

Seeking a secondary jo b besides 

atte n d in g school, engaging in 

hom e d u ties, and so o n .......2

Circle an

ap propriate

num ber

o S g

I I I

8 * 

. 1 1

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

c 5 T ? ? gJ > g 1 9 111 a ? S l « 2 § o. *S. S3

0. 3 *a 2. o (» 00

1 ^ * S' o oo o* o* « -j.

£ £ o o

S-S’ & s - 1 3 < a . rt 2*1 2 £

2. 3. 4.

rST g5 ? ■ SI'S CL a ik si

r 1 I / E nd o f 

J \ question -

Ifc._________

2.

H ours w o rk e d during th e survey w eek. (U se th e “ m em orandum ” 

at page 4)

Inclu d e h o u rs w orked o n side jo b s, h o m e handicrafts, tem p o ­

rary jo b s, etc. F or a person w ho h ad a jo b b u t did not w ork 

during th e survey w eek (p erso n w ho circled 4 in colum n 6), 

w rite O.

/ End o f \ 

\ question J

Ik

i S i O. 3 >3 §•

K » “ S < 2.~ g*

5. 6. 7. 8.

g 1 2 e-i's ?

§ I f a

X 3 g* g. ST £ 5 o « o 3

E nd o f 

| jV question

1. 2.

I'M M Si w 

r 3 | ^ S | 

5- S' 2. 2 3 ‘

/ End o f \ 

l question /

i s. 52-cre 1 «* Q. ' « 1 M V* «

■ 3 5

■ 1 5 • 0® 3

5.S

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

g-STg5 £ ? > g1 9 ~ 52.no a o. Jig 3

’ O 9 ; 5 ' a

0.3 g, o K *

© <B. ~ g* §• g- g* o £ £ o § ~ 5' £ S 2. |

2.

sr g1 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S.

9

S 5£.cro o. O. ~ i» S ’

/ End o f \

V question /

<-• 05 «5 0*3 « *< 8 | os <—• o sr

S ’ S ’ 2. S 5 '

E nd o f \ 

question /

. O 3

1- 3 5

8 *

r s

. o TT

g.3^ g. o-«g 00

* «g 1 * 3-

° «B. S. % £ §• =r o 3 £ £ © g 300 5- O. <9 2. I

1 -

E nd o f 

question

1.

o ' * cr 3

2.

£ * J jf

§■ s- & s §•

hours hours

/ End o f \ 

X, y ' question '

hours

1

End o f 

question -

I t erg (i ^ « rt sp |

3 ’ 5 ’ 2. 2 a

/ End o f \ 

y 3' \ question '

- \ /

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Japan

D e ta ils 

o f w o r k

r i !

o o

T? 3 3

I I f i f

i « «

5_go

0 i r ! r

S ' 2 - Er

e

5 3 =

A Cl. M

2 . a : £

c _ E

3 r = 3 ^ v<

? O CL

1 *1 ^ 

■ § * r

l l *

M

-a 5 r $

0 a . « 

3 o •

< 3

I I

i r 3

1 I 

8 S

S ' o ’ 8 o -

3 « 

r £

M

3 -

n

8 . Status

F o r a n e m p lo y e e

R e g u la r e m p lo y e e ....................... 1

T e m p o r a r y e m p lo y e e (a n 

e m p lo y e e w h o h a s a c o n ­

t r a c t o f e m p lo y m e n t w ith 

a p e r io d o f a m o n th o r m o re 

b u t n o t m o r e th a n a y e a r )

........................ 2

D a y la b o u r e r ( in c lu d in g an

e m p lo y e e w h o h a s a c o n - C irc le a n 

t r a c t o f e m p lo y m e n t w ith \ a p p r o p r ia te 

a p e r io d o f less th a n a n u m b e r

m o n t h ) ................................................ 3

F o r a c o m p a n y o r p u b lic

c o r p o r a t i o n d ir e c to r ....... 4

F o r a s e lf e m p lo y e d w o r k e r

W ith e m p lo y e e s ......................... 5 j

W ith o u t e m p lo y e e ................... 6

F o r a fa m ily w o r k e r .................... 7

F o r a p e r s o n w h o d id h o m e 

h a n d i c r a f t ............................... 8

ao H e m e h a n d ic r a f t 

F a m ily w o r k e r 

^ S e lf e m p lo y e d w o r k e r 

( w i t h o u t e m p lo y e e ) 

^ S e lf e m p lo y e d w o r k e r 

( w ith e m p lo y e e s )

■* D ir e c to r

" — c <ri D a y l a b o u r e r 

cm" T e m p o r a r y 

1 § ~ R e g u la r

1

^ S e lf e m p lo y e d w o r k e r 

o! F a m ily w o r k e r 

« H o m e h a n d ic r a f t 

( w i t h o u t e m p lo y e e )

^ S e lf e m p lo y e d w o r k e r 

( w ith e m p lo y e e s ) 

m D a y l a b o u r e r 

v D ir e c to r 

o E - R e g u la r«* . 2 cs T e m p o r a r y 

00 H o m e h a n d ic r a f t 

r-" F a m ily w o r k e r

S e ll e m p lo y e d w o r k e r 

° ( w i t h o u t e m p lo y e e ) 

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o r k e r 

( w ith e m p lo y e e s ) 

v D ir e c to r 

c ^ ^ D a y la b o u r e r 

TL oi T e m p o r a r y 

I ~ R e g u la r

so H o m e h a n d ic r a f t 

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o r k e r 

F a m ily w o r k e r 

^ ( w i th o u t e m p lo y e e ) 

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o r k e r 

,n ( w ith e m p lo y e e s )

<u D ir e c to r 

_ H ra T e m p o r a r y c ° D a y la b o u r e r 

c2 5 ^ R e g u la r

so H o m e h a n d ic r a f t 

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o r k e r 

F a m ily w o r k e r 

"® ( w i t h o u t e m p lo y e e ) 

S e if e m p lo y e d w o r k e r 

1/1 (w ith e m p lo y e e s ) 

v D ir e c to r 

c "ri D a y la b o u r e r 

" a . cm' T e m p o r a r y 

j2 i —1 R e g u la r

9 Name of W rite th e n a m e o f th e o f f ic e , f a c to r y , 

•stablilh- s h o p , e tc . in w h ic h th is p e r s o n w o rk e d , 

mart

C ir c le a n a p p r o p r ia te n u m b e r f o r th e o r g a n iz a tio n .

1. U n in c o r p o r a te d

2 . C o m p a n y 3 . O th e r s

1. U n in c o r p o r a te d

2 . C o m p a n y 3 . O th e r s

1. U n in c o r p o r a te d

2. C o m p a n y 3 . O th e r s

1. U n in c o r p o r a te d

2 . C o m p a n y 3 . O th e r s

1. U n in c o r p o r a te d

2 . C o m p a n y 3 . O th e r s

1 0 Kind of W rite s p e c ific a lly th e k in d o f b u s in e s s 

business o r in d u s tr y a t th e o f f ic e , f a c to r y , 

or s h o p , e tc . w h e r e th is p e r s o n w o rk e d , 

industry

W rite s p e c ific a lly th e k in d o f w o rk 

11 Kind of in w h ic h th is p e r s o n w a s e n g a g e d at 

work th e o f f ic e , f a c t o r y , s h o p , e tc .

1 2 . Number of persons engaged in the enterprise as

a whole

S t a t e th e n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s e n g a g e d in th e 

e n te r p r is e in c lu d in g th e m a m o f f ic e , b r a n c h 

o f f ic e s , f a c to r ie s , e tc .

C ir c le 9 f o r a c e n tr a l o r lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t 

e m p lo y e e .

O' G o v e r n m e n t 

. 3 0 0 0 p e r s o n s 

o r m o r e

f" 5 0 0 - 9 9 9 p e r s o n s j 

^ : 3 0 - 9 9 p e r s o n s vd 1 0 0 - 4 9 9 p e r s o n s 

' 1 0 - 2 9 p e r s o n s 

^ 5 - 9 p e r s o n s 

1 p e r s o n

2 - 4 p e r s o n s 

o'- G o v e r n m e n t 

. 1 0 0 0 p e r s o n s 

00 o t m o r e

5 0 0 - 9 9 9 p e r s o n s 

'O 1 0 0 - 4 9 9 p e r s o n s 

mmi 3 0 - 9 9 p e r s o n s 

- 1 0 - 2 9 p e r s o n s 

5 - 9 p e r s o n s 

--< 1 p e r s o n

f'i 2 - 4 p e r s o n s 

c> G o v e r r n e n r 

. 1 0 0 0 p e r s o n s 

o r m o r e

'Or - 5 0 0 - 9 9 9 p e r s o n s 

 1 0 0 — 4 9 9 p e r s o n s 

3 0 - 9 9 p e r s o n s 

cmfri 5 - 9 p e r s o n s V 1 0 - 2 9 p e r s o n s 

 2 - 4 p e r s o n s 

»-.■ 1 p e r s o n _____________________________ 1

od 1 0 0 0 p e r s o n s 

o i G o v e r n m e n t 

o r m o re

•d 3 0 - 9 9 p e r s o n s 

\d 1 0 0 — 4 9 9 p e r s o n s 

r-’ 5 0 0 — 9 9 9 p e r s o n s 

1 0 - 2 9 p e r s o n s 

m 5 — 9 p e r s o n s 

^ 1 p e r s o n

o i 2 - 4 p e r s o n s 

^ 1 0 0 0 p e r s o n s 

o ' G o v e r n m e n t 

o r m o r e

•-* 5 0 0 - 9 9 9 p e r s o n s 

1 0 0 - 4 9 9 p e r s o n s 

vs 

1 0 - 2 9 p e r s o n s 

3 0 — 9 9 p e r s o n s 

cm° 5 - 9 p e r s o n s 

" 

1 p e r s o n

2 — 4 p e r s o n s 

1 3 D*sire for work

F o r a p e r s o n w h o is w is h in g to c h a n g e jo b s

S e e k in g ..................................................................................................1

N o t s e e k i n g ............................................................................................2

F o r a p e r s o n w h o is w is h in g to h a v e a n o th e r j o b in

F o r a p e r s o n F o r a p e r s o n 

w h o is w is h - w h o is w is h ­

in g to c h a n g e in g to h a v e 

j o b s a n o t h e r j o b s

F o r a p e r s o n F o r a p e r s o n 

w h o is w is h - w h o is w is h ­

in g to c h a n g e in g to h a y e 

j o b s a n o t h e r j o b s

1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5. 

Cf Z Z O

s 2 55- 8 2 %

J r S | * <*> cfc

F o r a p e r s o n F o r a p e r s o n 

w h o is w ish - w h o is w is h ­

in g to c h a n g e in g to h a v e 

j o b s a n o t h e r j o b s

F o r a p e r s o n F o r a p e r s o n 

w h o is w is h w h o is w is h ­

in g t o c h a n g e in g to h a v e 

j o b s a n o t h e r j o b s

F o r a p e r s o n F o r a p e rs o n 

w h o is w ish - w h o is w is h ­

in g to c h a n g e ing to h a v e 

j o b s a n o th e r j o b s

a d d i t i o n to t h e p r e s e n t o n e

S e e k in g ................................................................................................. 3

N o t s e e k i n g ............... .................................... ..................................... 4

O t h e r s ..................................... ........................................................................ 5

1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 

m Z co z O

e 8 2 1 t

» r * f - O Q

u5 O th e r s

t . N o r 

^ S e e k in g^ se e k in g

[ - 1 S e e k in gj se e k in g

(' N o t 

O th e r s

, . N o t

se e k in g

f i S e e k in g

, . N o t 

[ — S e e k in g

| <N s e e k in g

O th e r s

I N o t

| s e e k in g 

« r i S e e k in g .

1 »M N o t 

^ ~

| se e k in g

S e e k in g

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Notes for entry (Q uestion 6 ~ 1 3 )

Japan

6. Was this person engaged in work during the survey week?

"W ork" m ean s any w ork for pay o r p ro fit w h eth er it be in the fro m of w ages, 

s a la ry , b u sin e ss p ro fits, etc. F am ily 

m e m b e rs who w orked for the fam ily bus in e s s such as a farm , s to re etc. a re 

re g a rd e d as those "w orking ", even though 

they did not re c e iv e any w ages. The 

w ork a ls o in cludes any hom e h a n d icraft o r 

te m p o ra ry w ork for pay o r pro fit.

“1 Engaged mainly in work” r e f e r s to 

a p e rso n who w as engaged m ain ly in 

w ork on a fa rm o r in an office, etc.

“4 Had a job but did not work” r e f e r s 

to:

a the em ployee o r the w o rk e r who 

had been aw ay fro m his w o rk b e ­

c a u se of sic k n e ss , holid ays, etc. , 

but who is ex pected to re c e iv e 

w ages o r s a la ry .

b the s e lf em ployed p e rso n o r e m ­

p lo y er who had been aw ay fro m 

his w ork for le s s than 30 days 

b e cau se of sic k n e ss, holid ays, etc.

“5 Had no job but seeking one” r e f e r s to 

the p e rso n who had no job but was 

a c tu a lly seek in g w ork by an sw erin g the 

a d v e rtise m e n ts in the n e w sp ap er, ap p ly ­

ing at the P u b lic E m ploym ent S ecu rity 

O ffice, etc. A lso r e f e r s to the p e rso n 

who is w aiting for the an sw er of the 

ap p licatio n and is able to take up a job 

im m e d iate ly a fte r he finds a job.

7. Hours worked during the survey week

Include the h o u rs w o rk ed on a m ain 

job, side job, a s s is tin g in the fam ily 

e n te r p r is e , te m p o ra ry re m u n e ra tiv e 

w ork, p re p a rin g fo r and c le a rin g 

w ork, o v e rtim e w ork, etc.

Do not include the h o u rs spen t for 

hou sekeeping, v o lu n tary w ork without 

pay, m e a ls, b re a k s, tra n s p o rtin g to 

and from an office, etc.

8. “Self employed worker” in clu d es a 

shop k e e p e r, a fa c to ry ow ner, a 

fa rm e r, d o cto r, s o lic ito r, w r ite r o r 

tra v e llin g m a r chant etc. , who c a r r ie s 

on his own b u sin e ss on account.

10. j See exam ple on s e p a ra te sh eet.

11. J

12. Number of persons engaged in the enterprise

as a whole

Self em ployed w o rk e r should be co un ted if the o rg an izatio n is "u n in c o rp o ­

ra te d "

1 3. Desire for work

"W ishing to change jo bs" r e f e r s to the 

em ployee who w ished to be a s e lf e m ­

ployed w o rk er, to change the e n te r p r is e 

w here he had been w o rking to an o th er, 

the s e lf em ployed w o rk er who w ished 

to be an em ployee, etc. But does not 

r e f e r to the p e rso n who w ished to change 

the type of w ork in the sam e e n te rp ris e .

Memorandum for question 7 on the reverse side

N am es

Day H o urs. M inutes H o urs. M inutes H o urs. M inutes H o u rs. M inutes H o urs. M inptes

H o u rs w o rk ed 

ie r e c o rd e d e v e ry da;

Day

Day

------------------ .. . _ - Day

Day

Day ,

----------: ------------

Day 1

T o tal

----- ---i

Page 4

84

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Students who are actively seeking work would be

enumerated as unemployed if they check “had no job but

seeking one.” Employed students would be counted as such

since they would check “engaged partly in work besides attending school.” It should be noted that very few students

are also engaged in work in Japan—only about 50,000, representing less than 1 percent of the 15- to 24-year-old

labor force.

The Japanese method appears to be more restrictive

than the U.S. method. Excluded from the unemployed

count in Japan, but included in the U.S. count, are:

1. Persons on layoff who were waiting to return to their jobs and not seeking other work. 2. Temporarily ill jobseekers who were not in a condi­ tion to begin work immediately. Such persons, if in a condition to work and seeking work, would be classified as unemployed. 3. Some persons who had recently been looking for jobs (i.e., within the past 4 weeks), but who took no ac­ tive steps in the survey week and were not waiting for an answer from a previous job application. The ques­ tionnaire appears to relate “job seeking” to the sur­ vey week. 4. Persons without a job and waiting to report to a new job at a later date. Such persons are considered, as a rule, neither to be seeking a job nor to be waiting for the results of previous job applications. Therefore, they are classified as economically inactive.

Method o f adjustment. There are no data available to estimate accurately the number of additional persons who

would be counted as unemployed in Japan if U.S. survey

methods and definitions were used. However, the total

number who would be added is probably small. The “lifetime employment” system (in which a worker remains with

the same employer until retirement) is a basic pattern of

labor-management relations in Japan. In most plants, the

worker is, in effect, granted permanence of tenure. When

the activity of the establishment is reduced, the employer

holds the worker on, either transferring him to another job

or reducing hours.

In the downturn of economic activity which began

in 1974, a growing number of persons became “temporarily

laid o f f ’ in Japan. This was partly because of the employment adjustment grant system, through which the central

government provides a portion of the allowances paid to

laid-off workers. (See chapter 2.) In the labor force survey,

persons receiving these subsidies are regarded as employed.

In the unlikely event that a person was laid off without

pay, he would be classified as unemployed.

A Japanese “layoff” is quite different from an American one. Persons on temporary layoff in Japan are not discharged, and they are still paid by their firms. They are

under a continuing employment contract and usually work

a reduced number of days or hours during the week rather

than being totally without work. Under U.S. concepts,

persons who work at all during the reference week are classified as employed, as are the Japanese on “temporary layoff.”

No information is available on the number of persons

in Japan not classified as unemployed because of temporary

illness or the number of persons recently looking for work,

but taking no concrete steps in the survey week. The fact

that persons awaiting the results of previous job applications are counted as unemployed results in the widening of

the jobseeking period beyond the survey week. However,

there is no specified period allowed for jobseeking activities,

such as the 4-week period used in the U.S. survey. There is

also no information on the number of persons waiting to

report to a new job at a later date. The number of such

persons not classifying themselves as unemployed results in

a slight understatement of Japanese unemployment under

U.S. concepts.

Labor force

In Japan, the labor force consists of all persons 15

years of age and over who: (1) Worked 1 hour or more for

pay or profit or as unpaid family workers in the survey

week; (2) were employed; or (3) were self-employed persons or paid employees with jobs but temporarily absent

from work provided that: (a) If self-employed, their absence from work did not exceed 30 days; (b) if paid employees, they received pay for part of the survey week.

Four differences between U.S. and Japanese concepts of the labor force are noted. First, Japan includes and

the U.S. excludes inmates of institutions in the survey universe (both countries include staff members of institutions

as employed persons). Japan probably classifies all, or

nearly all, inmates of institutions as not in the labor force—

therefore, no adjustment is necessary.

Japan includes and the U.S. excludes unpaid family

workers who worked 1 but less than 15 hours in the survey

week (460,000 in 1975). Japan includes career military

personnel (the “self defense force”) in the labor force.

Finally, persons with a paid job but not at work during the

survey week are in the U.S. labor force whether or not they

receive pay for the time off; in Japan, such workers must

have received pay for part of the survey week to be considered as in the labor force. No adjustment seems necessary

for this since Japanese employees under a continuing employment contract normally receive wages or salaries when

absent from work.

Method o f adjustment. The number of unpaid family

workers who worked less than 15 hours in the survey week

is reported in the survey results each month. Such persons

are subtracted from the labor force. Japan does not publish

figures on the self-defense force in the survey; such figures

were obtained from the Japanese Embassy in Washington.

Unemployment rate

Japan computes its unemployment rate by dividing

the unemployed by the total labor force. Adjustment to

85

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. concepts is accomplished by dividing the reported unemployed by the labor force adjusted to exclude family

workers working less than 15 hours and the self-defense

force. The adjustments result in either no change or a slight

increase in the reported unemployment rates (table B-l).

Quarterly and monthly estimates

The Bureau of Labor Statistics prepares quarterly and

monthly estimates of Japanese unemployment rates, adjusted to U.S. definitions and seasonally adjusted. The

method used in making these estimates is as follows:

Labor force. An adjustment for comparability to U.S. concepts is made to EPAs seasonally adjusted labor force data.

The ratio of the labor force adjusted to U.S. definitions to

the “as published” labor force, based on annual average

estimates, is applied to the monthly seasonally adjusted

labor force data to estimate the labor force adjusted to U.S.

concepts. The seasonally adjusted labor force figures are

prepared by the EPA in the same manner as unemployment figures.

France

Unemployment No adjustment is necessary to estimate unemployment on a basis comparable to U.S. definitions. BLS

uses the Economic Planning Agency's (EPA) seasonally adjusted number of unemployed. These figures are published

in the EPA’s monthly report, Japanese Economic Indicators. The EPA method for seasonal adjustment was developed by the EPA and is an adaptation of the X-10 Variant of the U.S. Bureau of the Census seasonal adjustment

program. The X-10 was modified by the EPA to take account of the rapid growth and structural changes experienced in Japan. Each year, the seasonal adjustment program is rerun to incorporate the experience of the previous

year and to estimate the seasonal factors for the current

year.

Table B-1.

The official monthly unemployment figures for

France relate to the number of registered unemployed persons. No unemployment rate is published. In addition to

the monthly counts of the registered unemployed, the

French National Institute of Statistics and Economic

Studies (INSEE) makes annual estimates of the labor force

and unemployment which, prior to 1974, were intended to

be comparable with the results of the French population

censuses. Since 1974, the annual estimates have been based

on the number of unemployed under 1LO definitions, as

determined from the results of annual labor force surveys.

Unemployment under ILO definitions represents a broader

concept than that under French census definitions. The

annual unemployment estimates are currently obtained by

Japan: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76

(Numbers in thousands)

item 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

Reported labor force ....... 44,330 45,110 45,620 46,140 46,520 47,100 47,870 48,910 49,830

Less: Unpaid family workers

who worked less than 15

hours................................... . *800 1780 *800 *880 *880 i 840 1870 *830 790

Less: Career military

personnel................... 210 210 210 220 210 220 220 230 230

Adjusted civilian labor force . . 43,320 44,120 44,610 45,040 45,430 46,040 46,780 47,850 48,810

Unemployed ................................ 980 750 660 590 590 540 570 650 630

Published unemployment rate

(percent) ................................... 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3

Adjusted unemployment rate

(p ercen t)................................ . 2.3 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.3

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Reported labor force................... 50,610 50,980 51,530 51,860 51,990 53,260 53,100 53,230 53,780

Less: Unpaid family workers

who worked less than 15

hours ................................ ... . 690 600 560 510 440 440 420 460 440

Less: Career military

person nel................ 240 240 240 230 230 230 240 240 240

Adjusted civilian labor force . . 49,680 50,140 50,730 51,120 51,320 52,590 52,440 52,530 53,100

Unemployed ............................. . 590 570 590 640 730 680 730 1,000 1,080

Published unemployment rate

(percent) ............

Adjusted unemployment rate

1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.0

(p ercen t)............................. 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.0

1 Estimate based on relationship of new series to old series in

1967.

86

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
increasing the unemployed job registrant series to include

the unregistered unemployed under ILO definitions—about

6 percent greater in 1975. The extent to which the registered

series undercounts unemployment has declined sharply

since the adoption of a compulsory national insurance system in 1967.

In October 1960, a regular series of labor force surveys was initiated, complementing the general population

censuses. These surveys indicate that the annual French unemployment and labor force estimates based on population census concepts need to be adjusted considerably to

conform more closely to U.S. concepts. The annual unemployment estimates based on ILO concepts, however,

need to be adjusted only slightly to conform to U.S. concepts.

In March 1975, INSEE published an article in which

French unemployment from the March 1974 survey was adjusted to “international definitions.”4 The international

definitions used were the definitions adopted by the ILO

in 1954. INSEE’s method of adjusting survey unemployment was the same as that being used by BLS, except that

persons seeking a non-wage or -salary job were excluded by

INSEE but are included by BLS. INSEE did not adapt the

labor force to “international definitions” in the article.

INSEE has continued its work on adapting French

unemployment to international concepts. In the last

chapter of the results of the 1975 and 1976 labor force surveys, INSEE presented estimates of employment and unemployment according to international definitions.5

Additional questions initially incorporated in the 1975 survey questionnaire made it possible to obtain more precise

estimates under international definitions. For example,

questions are now being asked on current availability for

work and on jobseeking activity within the previous

month. Prior to 1975, there were no such questions in

the survey.

Unemployment and labor force

Registered unemployed. Official monthly unemployment

statistics in France refer to the registered unemployed, consisting of all persons registered with the employment offices

at the end of each month. The figures are published by the

Ministry of Labor in the Bulletin mensuel des statistiques

du travail The reductions in the INSEE coefficient by

which the registered unemployed are inflated to obtain

annual estimates of French unemployment partially reflect

a substantial increase in the proportion of unemployed

workers claiming unemployment status following the adop4 Bernard Grais, “Methodes et sources utilisees pour la mesure du

chomage,” Economie et Statistique, March 1975, pp. 63-69.

5Baudouin Seys and Pierre Laulhe, Enquete Sur L ’Emploi de

1975, Resultats provisoires, Les Collections de L’INSEE, Series D,

Number 42, December 1975, pp. 71-76; and Enquete Sur VEm ploi

de 1976, Resultats provisoires, Les Collections de L’INSEE, Series

D, Number 48, November 1976, pp. 59-68.

tion of a compulsory unemployment insurance system in

1967. Prior to that, France had a nonstatutory insurance

plan established by collective bargaining agreements. The

National Employment Agency was established in July 1967

to carry out employment exchange and other labor market

management tasks. The new system provides coverage for

over half the French labor force, whereas the earlier plan

covered only about one-quarter of the work force. Also affecting registration statistics was the 1975 enactment of a

new program whereby workers laid off for economic reasons

receive 90 percent of their former wages.

Like most registration counts, the French series is

limited largely to recently employed wage and salary workers who have lost their jobs. Wage and salary workers make

up about three-quarters of the French labor force. Persons

seeking a job for the first time rarely register, and women

workers appear to depend on the placement offices relatively less than men. Furthermore, the registration statistics do not include recipients of the “income guarantee,”

a form of early retirement pension paid under certain conditions to older workers who lose their job. Despite the

establishment of the National Employment Agency, a substantial number of unemployed still do not register as such,

as is clear from the results of the labor force survey.

Labor force surveys. INSEE conducted experimental labor

force surveys irregularly during the 1950’s, using samples

of 5,000-10,000 households. In the series of surveys begun

in October 1960, a sample of over 25,000 households was

used—a sampling ratio of 1 in 600. The surveys were conducted in October and March of alternate years, except in

1961 when no survey was conducted. The survey of March

1967 terminated this series.

Beginning in March 1968, INSEE inaugurated a new

series of labor force surveys, using a different sampling

method than that used in the 1960-67 surveys. INSEE had

found that the 1962-67 surveys underestimated the total

population, particularly for age groups with the highest

activity rate. It was mainly to remedy this bias that the new

sampling method was introduced. The sample for the new

series is made up of areas rather than households. The

greater geographic concentration of interviews under the

new method permits savings in time and cost of interviewing. In addition, the new method permits better enumeration of persons in “marginal” lodgings, such as young

people living in individual rooms. Surveys in the new series

are conducted annually each March,6 using samples of

55,000-60,000 households-a sampling ratio of 1 in 300.

Detailed results of these surveys have been published through

6 The surveys are taken over a period of 7 weeks, usually beginning the last week of February and ending the second week of April.

Most interviews (i.e., over 90 percent) are conducted during the

first 4 weeks of this period. The 1968 survey, however, was delayed

and spread over a fairly long period, and the 1975 survey was conduced in April and May because the population census was taken

in March.

87

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
March 1972. Summary results for 1973 through 1976 are

also available and have been utilized in this study to prepare preliminary estimates for those years. From 1977 onwards the survey is conducted twice a year, in March and

October. No results for 1977 have been published yet.

Foreign workers are counted on the same basis as national workers in the labor force surveys. Some separate

data on foreign workers are published in the survey results.

The French labor force surveys are limited to residents

of private households. Collective households such as military camps, hotels, hospitals, homes for the aged, and religious communities are not surveyed. Also excluded are

residents of mobile homes, INSEE has made estimates of

the civilian labor force excluded from the survey, and these

figures have been added to the reported labor force.7 In recent years, there have been about 500,000 such persons. All

such persons are assumed to be employed; INSEE states

that they are persons who are engaged in an activity.

Both the old and the new surveys employ the same

basic definitions and wording of questionnaires. The questionnaire used in the surveys is so constructed that the population 15 years of age and over (14 and over prior to

1968) can be classified according to two different definitions of employment status—one corresponding to that

used in the population censuses, and therefore also comparable to INSEE’s annual labor force and unemployment

estimates, and the second corresponding more closely to

U.S. labor force concepts.

Census definitions. In the population census, persons are

asked to indicate their principal activity at the time of the

census. Persons stating that they are employed or unemployed constitute the labor force. No further questions are

asked regarding employment status. In the labor force surveys, people are asked their principal activity at the time of

the survey and the interviewer records their spontaneous responses. Those responding that they have a job or are unemployed are comparable to the labor force under the

census definition.

Labor force survey definitions. The labor force surveys attempt to probe deeper into the economic activity and

status of those who do not initially respond that they have

a job or that they are unemployed-the “inactive” population by census definitions. These are persons who respond

that their principal activity is that of housewife or student,

or that they are retired from the work force. These persons

are asked two additional questions. The first question concerns whether any professional activities were carried out

during the reference week. Persons who answer that they

worked 1 hour or more are classified as “marginally employed.” The second additional question concerns jobseeking activities. Persons without a job who did not work at

all in the survey week are asked whether they sought work.

7The INSEE figures were not derived from direct observation,

and should be regarded only as an estimated order of magnitude.

Those answering “yes” are classified as “marginally unemployed.”

Under labor force survey definitions, the employed

comprise all persons responding “employed” as their principal activity plus the “marginally employed” as defined

above. The unemployed comprise all persons responding

“unemployed” as their principal activity plus the “marginally unemployed.” Thus, the labor force surveys arrive

at a concept of the labor force broader than that of the

population censuses.

Under French survey concepts, persons do not have

to be actively seeking work or currently available for work

to be counted as unemployed. Also, persons who worked a

few hours during the survey week are counted as unemployed if they responded that their principal activity was

“unemployed.” On the other hand, persons on layoff and

persons waiting to begin a new job are counted as employed

if they responded that their principal activity was “employed.”

Comparability o f surveys. As mentioned earlier, France initiated a new series of labor force surveys in 1968, utilizing a

somewhat different sampling technique than used in the

1960-67 surveys. Concepts and definitions remained the

same. INSEE statisticians assert that a gap between the old

and new series has undoubtedly arisen from the differences

in sampling methods. They have stated that the change in

sampling method had little, if any, effect on unemployment

under census definitions, but feel that there may have been

a significant impact on the “marginally unemployed” figures. INSEE has made no link between the two series of

surveys.

In analyzing the survey results, BLS has noted a sharp

increase in the number of “marginally unemployed” persons

between 1967 and 1968, from 132,000 to 306,000 (table

B-2). Some of the increase was undoubtedly due to deteriorating economic conditions in 1968, but an unknown proportion may also be attributed to the better enumeration of

persons in “marginal” lodgings under the new sample

design.

Labor force participation rates provide another indicator of the break in the comparability of the surveys between 1967 and 1968. The figures for teenagers are difficult to interpret because the age of compulsory schooling

was increased from 14 to 16 in 1968. Economic activity

rates for both boys and girls declined slowly from March

1963 to March 1967, then dropped sharply in March 1968.

However, activity rates for several other age groups appear

to reflect the effects of the change in surveying method in

1968. Thus, between 1963 and 1967 activity rates of 20-

to 24-year-old women held steady around 61 and 62 percent, then rose to 66.5 percent in 1968. Both men and

women in the 55 to 64 age group also had an abnormal increase in economic activity, based on the previous trend.

It may well be that women in their early twenties and men

and women over age 55 who lived alone in rooming houses

88

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
French Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUEL

P o u r to u te p e r s o n a e n e e e n 1 9 6 1 o u a v a n t ( e t a y a n t M O B d iffe r e n t d e 9 )

Prenom : ....

TC N° i Sexe

1. Masc.

2. Fern.

Date de naissance

mois annee

3

Lien avec

le chef de

menage

(voir code)

4

MOB

(sauf pour la 

1re enquete 

dans i'aire)

Categorie

Nationality

(voir code)

Etat

matrimonial

1. C e lib a ta ir e

2. Marie

3 . V e u f

4. Divorce, legalement separe

_L

8. FILTRE : P resen ter fa carte n° 2 : Occupation principale a la date de I'enquete.

La personne doit se classer elle-meme.

9. Pendant la SEMAINE DE REFERENCE, du au 1975,

(derniere sem ain e du iun d i au dim anche prece d an t Ia date d ‘enq uete).

M... a-t-il cependant exerce une activity professionnelle ? O u i..

M e m e u n e activite n o n re m u n eree en a id an t un m e m b re de sa fam ille dans Non .

sa profession p a r exem ple.

N e fu t-ce qu'une heure, ne fu t-c e qu'un travail occasionnei ou exceptionnel.

10. M... a-t-il deja exerce une activity professionnelle meme pendant une courte pyriode, O ui..

meme s'il y a longtemps ? Exclure les activites p u re m e n t occasionneiles. jvjon _

11. (S i oui a la question p reced en te) :

FILTRE

gj 1 directement ^

Si 5 directement ^

Autres___

.Partie I 

Partie III

Q, 9

1

0

!

1

I o Si 0

directement

directement

Partie

.Partie II

b. M... travaillait-ii : a son compte (artisan, commercant, profession liberale...)..................... 1

en aidant un m em b re de sa famille dans sa profession........................... 2

comme salarie.................................................................................................... 3

_nombre de salaries permanents : .

Activite de I'etablissement (Preciser le plus possible) :

A quelle date M... a-t-il cesse d'exercer cette activity ? Annee......................................

(Si en 1971 ou apres) Mois.

Partie

a remphr pour

PARTIE I. - ACTIVITE PROFESSIONNELLE PRINCIPALE

^ touies les personnes c/assees « 1» a la question 8 « Fit TRE».

tomes les personnes ayant repondu « oui» a la question 9 (decrire dans ce cas i'activite professionnelle

I de la semaine de reference et non I'activite professionnelle habituelle ou la plus frequente).

12. PROFESSION PRINCIPALE : .........................................................................

iPreciser le plus possible. - Etemples mecantcitm reparateur d'autimobiles, charpent,: en far, dessmateur ^tdfii&w, coiffeur pour dames, etc.).

13. M... travaille-t-il, sans ytre saiariy, en aidant un membre de sa famille dans sa profession ?

14. (S i « non » a la question p rece d en te). M... exerce-t-il cette profession comme : .

..)......................

O ui..

Non

Exploitant agricole (proprietaire, fermier, metayer..

Membre d'une profession liberate............................................................................

Employeur ou travailleur indypendant : artisan, commercant, industriel, etc .

Travailleur & domicile pour le compte d'une ou plusieurs entreprises..............

Apprenti sous contrat................................................ ......................... ......................

Salarie d'un parent qui travaille £ son compte...................................... .............

Salarie place par I'intermediaire d'une entreprise de travail temporaire.........

Autre salarie...................................................................................................................

0

1

2

3_

4

5

6

7

8

.. M... emploie-t-il des salaries ? Combien ?

(N e pas c o m p ter les gen s de rnaison; dans ('agriculture, co m p ter seu /em en r les salaries p erm anents).

1 ou 2 salaries..................

3 a 5 ....................................

6 ou plus.............................

n'emploie pas de salaries.

15. a Si M... est ouvrier, qualification de I'emploi actual ;

Manoeuvre ou manoeuvre specialise.........................................

Ouvrier s p e c ia l (OS 1, OS 2, e tc.).......................................

Ouvrier qualifie ou hautement qualifies (P 1, P 2, P 3, etc.).

b . Si M... est agent de I'Etat ou d'une collectivity locale, employy d'un service public (EDF, SNCF, etc.),

militaire de carridre. Grade. (Examples: comruis principal secretaire admmistrabf. chef Ha gate de 2* classe, aide-operateur mecanographa, ate.).

C. Si M... est dans un autre cas, pr£ciser sa position hiyrarchique. (Exempks eontremailr*. chef dataller. riirecteur commercial, chet da

culture, chef de rayon, ate)

Reserve £ la D.R.

89

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
French Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

16. ETABLISSEMENT (industries commercial ou autre). EXPLOITATION AGRICOLE, etc., que M ... dirige ou pour lequei M ... travaille.

a Nom (ou raison sociale) : .......................... .................................. ................

Rue (ou lieu-dit) : ....................................................................N° : .........

Commune : .................. .......... .............................................D£p* : ..........

Partie reserv6e a la Direction R6gionale

»,:l_JU l£JU L_JU R6 CLE TECHSTTSECH A SA

lm : ....... ....................Loc : ..............................N° i : ...................

I i , i I I I , , , I u u AE AE5 NAP T CHET

SIR I___I_I__I___I__I___1__I I I___I I I 1 I

16. A A quelle date, M ... a-t-il commence £ travailler dans cet 6tablissement (a cette adresse) ?

A n n 6e.............................................. |_____|

(Si en 1971 ou apres) M ois. ____ |

16. a Activite de cet etablissem ent: ......................................................................... .............................. ................. .....................

Preciser le plus possible. — Exemples ^ commerce de wins en gros, epicerie de detail, fabrication de charpentes mdtaMques, etc.

17. M ... travaille-t-il de fa$on :

Reguliere : £ longueur d'annee de facon suivie (meme a temps partie l)........................... 1

Saisonniere v recoltes, activit£s hdteli£res, etc............................................................................... 2

Occasionnelle : activite d'appoint exercee irregulierement........................................................ .....3

18. L'activite principale est-elle exercee : £ temps complet

£ temps partiel ..

19. Nombre cTheures de travail REELLEMENT accomplies pendant la SEMAINE DE REFERENCE

dans la PROFESSION PRINCIPALE.

y compris : les heures supplementaires r£ellement accomplies;

!

les heures payees mais non accomplies;

les temps de trajets entre le domicile et le lieu de travail;

les heures perdues pour cause de maladie, conge, chomage.

1

2

20. Si le nombre cf heures est inferieur £ 45, observations

A. Causes passag£res :

Debut ou cessation d'emploi................................ 01

Maladie (y compris longue maladie).................... 02

Conge legal de matemitd....................................... 03

Cong£ annuel, conge pour convenance personnels. 04

Mauvais temps, reduction saisonniere d'activite . 05

Conflit du travail (gr£ve. lock-out)....................... 06

Chdmage partie! (ou ralentissement des affaires) 07

Exerce actueilement les activit£s occasionnelies

qui se presentent................................................ 08

Participation £ un stage de formation (FPA, etc.). 09

Autres causes passageres (preciser)..................... 10

B. Causes durables (uniquement si aucune cause

passagere nest citee) :

Horaire normal dans IStablissement ou I'entreprise......................................................................... 11

Nature du poste individuel de travail (penible,

dangereux...)......................................................... 12

Travaille £ temps partiel........................................... 13

Autres causes durables (preciser)........................... 14

R6serv£ £ la D.R.

1

u u T CHET

J____ L

AE AE5

PARTIE II. - RECHERCHE D'UIM EMPLOI

Partie a remplir pour toutes les personnes (sauf les militaires du contingent)

qu'elles aient ou non actueilement un emploi ou une situation

2 1. M ... cherche-t-il un emploi (ou un autre emploi) ou’une situation ?

Oui - Cherche un emploi salarie..................

0 . . ( Oui - Cherche une situation £ son compte Passer directement partie suivante. \ K

I N o n ....................................................................

1

2

0

2 2. Si M ... trouve un emploi MAINTENANT, peut-il commencer £ travailler immediatement ?

O u i.... 1

Non o

l— ► Pourquoi ?

Termine ses etudes.............. ............................................... 1

A un emploi qu'il ne peut quitter immediatement ..... 2

Est malade temporairement......................................... . 3

Autres raisons. Pr6ciser : .................................................. 4

23. M ... cherche-t-il un emploi :

A temps complet................................................................................................

A temps partiel, mais £ d£faut accepterait un emploi £ temps complet

A temps partiel, £ ('exclusion du temps complet.............................. .........

1

2

3

90

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24. M... cherche-t-ii un emploi occasionnel pour une duree limitee ?

Oui . .......................................................

Non : cherche un emploi permanent.

French Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

_1_0

25 a. Ml... est-il actuellement inscrit a un office public de placement : Agence Nationals pour S'Emploi (AIMPH),

bureau de main d'oeuvre d'une mairie ?

Oui —

Non ...

b . DEPUIS UN MIOIS, M... a-t-il fait d'autres demarches pour trouver un emploi ?

O u t....

Non ... _0

2

Lesquelles ? (S i plusieurs reponses, inscrire celle qui a le plus p e tit n u m ero )

S'est inscrit (ou est reste inscrit) dans un office prive de placement ou une agence de travail temporaire..

A fait une annonce dans un journal ou sur un tableau d’affichage......................................... ......................

A repondu a des offres d'emploi publiees par annonce dans un journal ou sur un tableau d'affichage .

A cherche par relations personnelles..................................................................................................................

A utilise d'autres modes de recherche. (P r e c is e r )..............................................................................................

1

2

3

4

5

26. Depuis combien de temps M... cherche-t-il un emploi ?

N’a pas commence ses recherches

Moins d'un m o is ..............................

, 1 mois ci moins de 3 m ois.............

V 3 mois £ moins de 6 m ois.............

____ * 6 mois a moins d'1 a n .....................

i 1 an ci moins de 2 ans....................

/ 2 ans ci moins de 3 ans..................

3 ans et plus......................................

------- ► Preciser le nombre de m o is...........

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

____I__

27. iS a u f p o u r les perso nnes classees 1 a !a question 8 . FILTR E) A la suite de quelles circonstances ML.

cherche-t-il un emploi ?

Vient de terminer (ou termine) ses etudes...........................................................................................................

Vient de terminer son service militaire........................................................................................................ ..........

Vient de quitter un emploi :

dont i! a ete licencie : licenciement individual.........................................................................

licenciement collectif................................................................................

dont il a demissionne : salaire ou revenu insuffisant, conditions de travail (horaires, p§nibilite, etc.), distance du domicile...........................................................

pour motifs personnels.................................... ........................................

pour leque! il a pris sa retraite.......................................... ......................................................................

qui etait un emploi occasionnel................................................................................................. .............

Avait cesse toute activite (pour s'occuper de sa famille, de ses enfants, ou pour raisons de sante, etc.).

1

2

m

3

4

2 2

5

6

7

8

9

28. (P o u rie s perso nnes classees 1 a la question 8 . FILTR E) Pourquoi Ml... cherche-t-il un autre emploi ?

II existe une crainte ou une certitude de perdre I'emploi actuel......................... ............................................

M... desire trouver un emploi plus satisfaisant en ce qui conceme :

Le salaire, le revenu.................................................................... ..............................................................

1

2

Les conditions de travail (horaires, pembiiite, etc.), la distance par rapport au domicile ...........

M... cherche une seconde activite 3 exercer en plus de celle qu'il exerce actuellement...........................

Autres circonstances..................................................................................................................................... .

3

4

5

29. (S a u f p o u r les perso nnes classees 1 a la question 8 . FILTR E ) Ml... perpoit-ii des allocations de chomage ?

Aide publique......................... ............................................................. ...................................................................

Assurance-chomage ASSEDIC.................................................................................................................................

Aide publique et assurance-chomage ASSEDIC............................................................. .................. ...............

N o n ............................................................................................................................... ................................................

1

2

3

0

91

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8.

France: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status

Respondent is asked to classify himself in one of - Part-time job

following categories listed on card 2: Other (specify)

1. Practicing a profession; employed; 

working in a relative’s business as an 

unpaid family worker (go to Part I)

2. Without work and looking for work

3. Housewife (keeping own home)

4. Student or pupil

5. Military conscript (performing compulsory service) (go to Part Ilf)

6. Retired

7. Others without a professional position

9. During the reference week did . . . practice a professional activity? (If yes, go to Part I)

Part I-Employed Persons

(To be completed for ail persons classified under number 

1 to question 8 or replying yes to question 9)

12 to 16. Occupation, class of worker, industry, etc.

17. Is ... a regular, seasonal, or occasional worker?

18. Is the principal activity full or part time? 19. State the number of hours actually worked during 

the reference week in the principal profession

- including overtime

- excluding hours paid for but not worked; 

travel between home and work site; hours 

lost due to sickness, holiday, or unemployment

20. If the number of hours worked is less than 45, 

give reason:

A. Short-term reasons:

- Start or cessation of job

Illness (including long-term illness)

Maternity leave (under national

insurance)

Annual or personal leave 

Bad weather, reduction of seasonal activity - Labor dispute (strike or lock-out)

- Partial unemployment (or slack 

work)

Performing an occasional job at 

present

Participation in training course Other (specify)

B. Loiig-term reasons (only if no shortterm reason is given):

- Normal working hours in establishment

Nature of work (tiring, dangerous, etc.)

Part II—Seeking Employment

(To be completed for all persons except military

conscripts, whether employed or not)

21. Did . . . seek a job (or another job)?

Yes - sought wage employment

— Yes-sought self-employment (skip to following Part)

— No (skip to following Part)

22. If . . . found a job NOW, could he begin work

immediately?

— Yes

— No, why?

- Finishing his studies

- Has a job and is not able to quit

immediately

- Temporarily ill

Other (specify)

23. Did . . . look for:

— A full-time job

— A part-time job, but would accept a

full-time job

A part-time job only

24. Did . . . seek a temporary job for a limited duration?

Yes

— No: permanent job only

25A. Is . . . registered at the Agence Nationale pour

TEmploi (ANPE) or a local employment bureau?

B. In the past month, did . . . make any other attempts to find a job?

If yes:

— Registered at private employment agency

or an agency for temporary work

— Advertised in a newspaper or other public

place

— Answered newspaper ads or other job

announcements

— Asked personal friends

— Other (specify)

26. How long has . . . looked for work?

— Not yet commenced job search

Less than 1 month

— 1-3 months

— 3-6 months

-- 6 mos-1 year

— 1 -2 years

— 2-3 years

— 3 or more years

L

92

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-2. France: Unemployment as recorded by labor

force surveys, 1960-76

(Thousands)

Date

Total

unemployment

Under census

definitions

Marginally

unemployed

October surveys:

1960 ................... . 450 202 248

1962 ...................... 457 254 203

1964 ................... . 420 254 166

1966 ...................... 506 371 135

March surveys:

1963 ...................... 343 223 120

1965 ...................... 360 236 124

1367 ................... ... 437 305 132

1968 ... . .. . . 656 350 306

1969 ...................... 687 362 325

1970 ... . .. . . 684 330 353

1971 . . . ..... 767 423 344

1972 ........ 794 451 343

1973 ........ 734 394 340

1974 ................ 782 441 342

19751 ................... 1,185 737 448

1976 ...................... 1,350 911 439

1 This survey was conducted in April.

were much better represented in the series of surveys beginning in 1968.

In the following method of adjustment, the possible

gap between the two series of surveys has not been taken into

account because of the absence of any data with which to

make an adjustment for the impact of change in surveying

technique. However, it should be kept in mind that the

French unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts are

likely to be somewhat understated for the period prior to

1968 because of underenumeration of the “marginally”

unemployed.

Method of adjustment

The detailed information provided by the labor force

surveys can be used to estimate French labor force and unemployment according to U.S, concepts of measuring these

items. In summary, annual estimates of France’s labor force

and unemployment, adjusted to U.S. concepts, are derived

as follows: (1) The total civilian labor force and unemployment figures from the labor force surveys are adjusted to

U.S. concepts; (2) ratios are computed comparing (a) the

adjusted labor force with the civilian labor force figures 

(from the labor force surveys) that are comparable with

French population census definitions, and (b) the adjusted

unemployed with the registered figure for the survey month;

(3) annual adjustment factors are derived and applied to

the published French figures. Detailed descriptions of

these three steps follow.

Adjustment o f labor force survey results to O.S, concepts. 

The adjustments of the reported unemployment figures to

U.S. concepts are shown in tables B-3 (October surveys)

and B 4 (March surveys). Total reported unemployment, 

including the marginally unemployed, is adjusted to:

1. Exclude those who state that their principal activity was unemployed but who did some work in the sur­ vey week. The number of such persons is reported in the labor force survey, (if those who worked less than 15 hours were unpaid family workers, they would be classified as unemployed in the United States if they were seeking paid employment, but sufficient detail for making this distinction is not available from the French surveys.) 2. Exclude unemployed persons (both the ‘"active” and the “marginal”) who stated that they had not yet commenced seeking work. Such persons would be classified as outside the labor force in the United States. Some of the unemployed (census definition) who have not yet commenced seeking work may be among those (already subtracted from the unemployed total) who stated they were unemployed but who did some work in the survey week.

The number of unemployed persons who had not commenced seeking work is reported in the labor force survey. In the 1975 and subsequent surveys, persons were asked specifically whether they had made any attempts at jobseeking in the previous month. Those who responded that they had not done so have been excluded from the unemployed for com­ parability with U.S. concepts. In the surveys prior to 1975, persons were asked how long they had been looking for work, but there was no specific question as to whether active steps were taken in the previous month. Persons who responded that they had not be­ gun to look for work were excluded from the unem­ ployed in the years prior to 1975 for adjustment to U.S. concepts. Thus, there may well be some persons who have not been excluded prior to 1975 who did not take active steps within the previous month. This is indicated by the higher proportion of marginally active persons who did not commence seeking work in 1975 and J 976 compared with previous years- 40 percent in 1975 and 1976; 20-25 percent in 1968-74.

3. Exclude unemployed persons (both “active” and “mar­ ginal”) who were not currently available for work ex­ cept for reasons of temporary illness. Data on the number of such persons were not regularly collected in the surveys until 1975. Results for that year indi­ cated that 4.7 percent of the unemployed under census definitions and 40.2 percent of the margin­ ally unemployed were not currently available for work (except for temporary illness). These propor­ tions have been applied each year through 1974 to obtain estimates of the number of persons not cur­ rently available for work. Beginning in 1975, a reg­ ular question on current availability (within 1 5 days) was added to the surrey, and data were published on this point. Again, there is a possibility of overlap with items 1 and 2 above. 4. Exclude the number of persons who fall into more than one of the first three categories above, to avoid doublecounting. In the results of the 1975 labor force survey, information on this point was provided for the first lime. The data indicated that 11 percent of the sum oi persons m the first three categories, under census definitions, should be excluded because of double counting. Similarly, 23 percent of these per­ sons in the “marginally active” category should be ex chided. For 1968 onward, the adjustment for over­ count has been based on estimates supplied by

93

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
INSEE. For the years prior to 1968, BLS has made estimates of the overcount based on 1968 relation­ ships. The number of such persons has been added back into the unemployed count. 5. Include persons who stated they were employed but who did not work at all in their principal activity dur­ ing the survey week because of partial unemployment or slack work (i.e., temporary layoff) or because they

either were waiting to start work or left their previous employment. The number of persons in these two categories is reported in the survey results. Some of these persons may have worked in secondary jobs during the survey week, but no data are available on this point. 6. Include other jobseekers who said they had a job in the “census” sense but were looking for work in the “international” sense. This group comprises a small number of workers identified by INSEE for the first time in the 1975 survey. They are probably such persons as unpaid family workers who worked fewer than 15 hours and were seeking paid jobs. They should be included under U.S. concepts. The 1975 data indicated that they represented a small number of persons, about 11,000. INSEE has used this figure as a constant in making estimates of unemployment under ILO concepts back to 1968. BLS has also

followed this procedure. For the years prior to 1968, the number of persons in this category was estimated based on 1968 relationships. 7. Exclude persons under 16 years of age from the un­ employed count. The lower age limit for the French labor force surveys was 14 until 1968 when it was raised to 15. Since compulsory schooling now ends at age 16 in France, 14- and 15-year-olds have been excluded from the unemployed in 1960 through 1967, and 15-year-olds have been omitted from data for 1968 and following years. The numbers of unem­ ployed 14- and 15-year-olds was not separately re­ ported in the labor force surveys. Their numbers were estimated by assuming they had the same unemploy­ ment rate as all teenagers.

The adjustments to the labor force figures reported in

the French surveys are shown in tables B-5 and B-6. The

total civilian labor force (including the “marginally” employed and unemployed) is adjusted to exclude unpaid

family workers not at work, unpaid family workers who

worked 1 but less than 15 hours, and persons reporting

themselves as employed but who were not at work because

of “durable reasons,” that is, personal convenience or the

nature of the job. Figures on all the above categories are

Table B-3. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from October surveys to U.S. concepts, 1960-66

(Numbers in thousands)

1960 1962 1964 1966

Item Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female

Reported unemployed . ....................... 450 160 290 465 183 282 420 175 245 506 204 302

Less: Persons at work 1 hour

or m o r e ................... ..................... 22 16 5 17 7 10 12 5 7 16 10 6

Less: Unemployed who have

not commenced seeking

work1 , 2 ................... ...................... 77 17 60 85 33 52 67 20 47 58 18 40

Less: Persons not currently

available for work3 . . . . . . . . 109 24 85 94 36 58 79 43 36 71 22 49

Plus: Adjustment for double

count4 ......................... ................... 48 13 35 45 17 28 36 15 21 33 11 22

Plus: Employed persons not at

work due to:

Start or cessation of job1 . . . . 29 14 15 20 10 10 27 13 14 22 15 7

Partial unemployment

(slack work)1 ......................... 46 20 26 41 18 23 33 13 20 29 14 15

Plus: Other jobseekers5 ................... 4 1 3 4 2 2 4 2 2 5 2 3

Adjusted unemployed, age 14

and over . . . . . ............................. 369 151 2 1S 379 154 225 362 150 2 12 450 196 254

Less: 1 4 -and 15-year-olds6 . . . 21 10 11 21 10 11 19 10 9 18 8 10

Adjusted unemployed, age 16

and over ................... . . . . . . 348 141 208 358 144 214 343 140 203 432 188 244

Registered unemployed (October) . . 116 69 47 163 94 69 119 71 48 154 33 61

Adjusted unemployed age 16

and over as percent of

registered unemployed................ 300.0 204.3 442.6 219.6 153.2 310.1 288.2 197.2 422.9 280.5 202.2 400.0

1 Number of persons reported as “unknown" distributed proportionally. 2

bo.-»d on data reported in the surveys on persons who have not

commenced seeking jobs. No data were available on the number of

persons who had not actively sought work in the preceding month.

3 Estimates based on data reported in 1975 which indicated 4.7

percent of the unemployed under census definitions and 40.2 percent of the marginally unemployed were not currently available for

work.

4

This adjustment allows for the fact that persons may have been

excluded more than once by appearing in more than one of the

above categories. Double count was estimated as 23 percent of the

above three categories.

* Persons who were classified as employed, but who were seeking

work and would be counted as unemployed under U.S. concepts.

Estimates based on data from INSEE which indicate that this group

is equivalent to 2 percent of the reported unemployed.

Number of 14- and 15-year-olds reported in the survey divided

by ratio of reported to adjusted unemployed age 14 and over.

94

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-4. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from March surveys to U.S. concepts, 1963-76

(Numbers in thousands)

Item

1963 1965 1967 1968

Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female

Reported unemployed .......................... 343 156 187 360 155 204 437 200 237 656 269 387

Less: Persons at work 1 hour

or m o r e ...................................... 8 4 4 10 8 1 9 6 3 18 11 7

Less: Unemployed who have not

commenced seeking work1 . . 69 27 42 57 14 43 46 12 34 105 29 76

Less: Persons not currently

available for work2 ................... 58 23 35 61 15 46 67 17 50 139 38 101

Plus: Adjustment for double

count3 ......................... ... 31 12 19 29 8 21 28 8 20 61 20 41

Plus: Employed persons not at

work due to:

Start or cessation of job1 . . . 18 10 8 16 10 6 9 7 2 28 15 13

Partial unemployment

(slack work)1 ...................... 31 15 16 38 15 23 41 21 20 36 19 17

Plus: Other jobseekers4 ...... 7 3 4 7 3 4 9 4 5 11 5 6

Adjusted unemployed, age 14

and over ...................... 295 142 153 322 154 168 402 205 197 530 250 280

Less: 14 -and 15-year-olds5 . . . . 16 8 8 19 9 10 23 12 11 7 4 3

Adjusted unemployed, age 16

and over ............................................. 279 134 145 303 145 158 379 193 186 523 246 277

Registered unemployed (March) . . . 178 116 62 153 95 58 189 123 66 264 168 96

Adjusted unemployed age 16

and over as percent of registered unemployed ...... 156.7 115.5 233.9 198.0 152.6 272.4 200.5 156.9 281.8 198.1 146.4 288.5

1969 1970 1971 1972

Reported unemployed . ....................... 687 278 409 684 249 435 767 273 494 794 287 506

Less: Persons at work 1 hour

or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12 7 19 12 7 21 13 8 24 15 9

Less: Unemployed who have not

commenced seeking work1 . . 102 27 75 109 25 84 123 30 93 117 24 92

Less: Persons not currently

available for work2 ................... 148 39 109 158 36 122 158 39 119 159 33 126

Plus: Adjustment for double

count3 . ................ ...................... 70 23 47 78 23 55 77 21 56 79 19 60

Pius: Employed persons not at

work due to:

Start or cessation of job1 . . . 26 14 12 22 12 10 26 15 11 18 9 9

Partial unemployment

(slack work)1 ...................... 29 13 16 26 11 15 23 12 11 20 9 11

Plus: Other jobseekers4 ................ 11 4 7 11 4 7 11 4 7 11 4 7

Adjusted unemployed, age 14

and o v e r............................................ 554 254 300 535 226 309 602 243 359 622 256 366

Less: 14 -and 15-year-olds5 .... 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1

Adjusted unemployed, age 16

and o v e r............................................. 550 252 298 531 224 307 600 242 358 620 255 365

Registered unemployed (March) . . . 246 148 99 250 145 105 335 190 145 389 221 167

Adjusted unemployed age 16

and over as percent of registered unemployed ...... 223.6 170.3 301.0 212.4 154.5 292.4 179.1 127.4 246.9 159.4 115.4 218.6

1973 1974 19756 1976

Reported unemployed . . . . . . . . . 734 251 483 782 259 524 1,185 486 699 1,350 511 839

Less: Persons at work 1 hour

or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13 8 22 14 8 29 18 11 34 22 12

Less: Unemployed who have not

commenced seeking work1 . . 110 25 85 120 28 92 257 60 197 238 56 182

Less: Persons not currently

available for work2 . . . . . . . 156 35 121 158 37 121 215 49 166 192 44 148

Pius: Adjustment for double

count3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 21 60 72 19 53 99 25 74 82 22 60

See footnotes at end of table.

95

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-4. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from March surveys to U.S. concepts, 1963-76—Continued

(Numbers in thousands)

Item

1973 1974 19756 1976

Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female

Plus: Employed persons not at

work due to:

Start or cessation of job2 . . . 18 9 9 18 9 9 16 8 8 26 13 13

Partial unemployment

(slack work)1 ...................... 20 9 11 20 9 11 35 16 19 18 8 10

Plus: Other jobseekers4 ...... 11 4 7 11 4 7 11 5 6 5 2 3

Adjusted unemployed, age 14

and o v e r................... 577 221 356 603 221 383 845 413 432 1,017 434 583

Less: 14 -and 15-year-olds5 .... 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

Adjusted unemployed, age 16

and o v e r............................................ 575 220 355 601 220 382 843 412 431 1,015 433 582

Registered unemployed (March) . . . 378 192 186 439 207 232 755 391 364 938 465 474

Adjusted unemployed age 16

and over as percent of registered u nem p loyed................ 152.1 114.6 190.9 136.9 106.3 164.7 111.7 105.4 118.4 108.2 93.1 122.8

d u m b e r of persons reported as “unknown" distributed proportionally.

2Through 1974 estimated as 4.7 percent of unemployed under

census definitions and 40.2 percent of the marginally unemployed.

Beginning 1975, based on results of the survey.

3This adjustment allows for the fact that persons may have been

excluded more than once by appearing in more than one of the

above categories. From 1968, the adjustment was made on the basis

of data supplied by INSEE, Double count for prior years estimated

as 23 percent of the above three categories.

reported in the survey results. The unemployed who have

not commenced seeking work or who were not currently

available for work should also be excluded from the labor

force. The method of estimating these categories was

explained above. Also, the adjustment to eliminate double

counting in these unemployed categories must also be made

here.8

Finally , the number of persons in the reported labor

force who are under the age of 16 should be excluded. The

number of 14-year-olds in the labor force was separately

reported in the surveys conducted from 1960 through

1967. In 1968, the lower age limit was raised to 15. The

number of 15-year-olds in the labor force has been estimated by applying the reported labor force participation

rate for 15-year-olds to the estimated 15-year-old population from demographic data reported to the OECD.9

g

The double-count adjustment was modified slightly to apply only

to double counting of persons who had not commenced seeking

work and were also not currently available for work. Thus, the adjustment did not apply to persons who stated that their principal

activity was “unemployed” but who did some work in the survey

week. Such persons were excluded from the unemployed, but

should not be excluded from the labor force because they would be

classified as employed by U.S. concepts.

9 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

Demographic Trends, Supplement Country Reports (Paris, OECD,

1966) and Demographic Trends. 2970-1985 in OECD Member

Countries (Paris, OECD, 1974).

4

Persons who were classified as employed, but who were seeking

work and would be counted as unemployed under U.S. concepts

(e.g., unpaid family workers who worked fewer than 15 hours and

were seeking paid jobs). The figures for 1968 onward were supplied

by INSEE. For prior years, estimated as 2 percent of the number of

reported unemployed.

'5 Number of 14- and 15-year-olds reported in the survey divided

by ratio of reported to adjusted unemployed age 14 and over.

Data for April.

Detailed results of the French surveys through March

1972 have been published. For the later surveys, only

summary results have been published, and these have been

used to make interim estimates until the detailed results

become available. Therefore, some minor revisions may

be made in the future in tables B-4, B-6, and B-7.

Adjustment ratios. (See tables B-3 through B-6.) Ratios of

(a) labor force figures adjusted to U.S. concepts to (b) unadjusted Figures based on census definitions were computed

for each labor force survey. Ratios of adjusted unemployed

to registered unemployed for men and women were also

computed. The unemployment ratios were computed separately for men and women because of the large difference in the degree to which unemployed men and women

register. In March 1976, the adjusted civilian labor force age

16 and over was 1.5 percent greater than the civilian labor

force by French census definitions. Adjusted unemployment was 8 percent greater than unemployment recorded

in the registered unemployed series. Male unemployment

according to U.S. concepts was 7 percent smaller than

registered male unemployment; female unemployment

under U.S. concepts was 23 percent higher than registered

female unemployment. The March 1976 survey was the

first one to show an overstatement of male unemployment

by the registered series; all previous surveys had indicated

that the registration series understated male unemployment

by U.S. definitions.

96

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-5, France: Adjustment of labor force data from

October surveys to U.S. concepts, 1960-66

(N um bers in thousands)

Item 1960 1962 1964 1966

Reported civilian labor force1 .. 20,025 20,642 20,862 20,948

Less: Unpaid family workers:

Not at work2 ............................. 27 46 36 35

At work less than 15 hours2 . . 178 168 177 136

Less: Employed persons not at

work for durable reasons2,3 . . 15 19 32 33

Less: Employed who had not

commenced seeking work2,4. . 77 85 67 58

Less: Persons not currently

available for work5 , ................ 109 94 79 71

Plus: Adjustment for double

count6 ......................................... 21 24 23 21

Adjusted civilian labor force, age

14 and o v e r ................................ 19,640 20,254 20,494 20,636

Less 14- and 15-year-olds7 . . 8 581 442 368 308

Adjusted civilian labor force,

age 16 and o v e r...................... . 19,059 19,812 20,126 20,328

Reported civilian labor force

(census definitions) ....... 18,929 19,672 20,055 20,239

Adjusted civilian labor force

age 16 and over as percent of

reported civilian labor force . . 100.7 100.7 100.4 100.4

1 Labor force surveyed including marginally active plus estimated

labor force not covered by the survey less career military personnel.

2Number of persons reported as "unknown” distributed proportionally.

3"Durable reasons” refers to nature of the job and personal convenience.

4

Based on data reported in the surveys on persons who had not

commenced seeking jobs. No data were available on the number of

persons who had not actively sought work in the preceding month.

5 Estimated as 4.7 percent of unemployed under census definitions and 40.2 percent of the marginally unemployed.

6This adjustment allows for the fact that persons may have

been excluded more than once above since they could have neither

commenced seeking work nor been currently available for work. 7

Number of 14- and 15-year-olds estimated in the survey divided

by ratio of reported civilian labor force to adjusted labor force

age 14 and over.

8 Estimate.

The adjustment factor for men has been declining

rapidly in recent years. In March 1969, male unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts was 70 percent higher than

registered male unemployment. By 1970, this factor had

fallen to 55 percent, and by 1975, to 5 percent. Part of

this decline was brought about by the spread of the New

Employment Agency throughout the country. The decline

was also related to higher unemployment benefits in France

which induced more persons to register. Periods of recession, such as 1974-76, also tend to cause more unemployed

persons to register at employment offices, thus reducing

the adjustment factor which is applied to the registrations

series.

Female adjustment factors have also been declining

(except in 1976 when the factor rose slightly) for the same

reasons stated above. However, the adjustment factors for

women remain much higher than those for men since many

unemployed women are new entrants or reentrants to the

labor force and are not eligible for jobless benefits.

Annual estimates o f labor force and unemployment adjusted

to U.S. concepts. The adjustment factors developed from

the labor force surveys for October and March of alternate

years 1960 through 1966 and March of each year beginning

in 1967 were prorated by month to obtain annual average

adjustment factors (shown on table B-7). For the years

1959 and 1960, the adjustment factor for 1961 was assumed

to apply. The March 1976 adjustment factor was assumed

to apply in 1976 in order to make preliminary estimates

for that year. When the March 1977 survey results are

available, some revisions to the 1976 unemployment estimates may be necessary because of the prorating technique.

The October surveys taken at 2-year intervals between

1960 and 1966 indicated much higher unemployment adjustment factors than the March surveys. This may indicate a large seasonal variation in adjustment factors; however, it is difficult to determine the extent of seasonal

variation in the factors since no two surveys were taken in

the same year. A comparison of age distributions of the

unemployed in October and March reveals some significant

differences. The following tabulation shows the average age

distribution for the 1962-66 October surveys versus the

distribution for the 1963-67 March surveys:

October

(Percent)

March

Total under census definitions . 100.0 100.0

14 to 19 years . . . . .. . . . 34.6 31.3

20 to 24 years . . . . .. . . . 13.5 15.1

25 to 54 y e a rs ......................... 38.5 41.3

55 and over ................ 13.3 12.3

Total marginally active ............. 100.0 100.0

14 to 19 y e a rs .......................... 22.3 27.9

20 to 24 y e a rs ......................... 11.6 12.9

25 to 54 y e a rs ...................... ... 47.0 41.9

55 and over ............................. 19.0 17.3

These figures indicate that, under census definitions,

teenage unemployment was a higher proportion of total

unemployment in October than in March. The reverse was

true for marginally active teenagers.

According to census definitions, teenagers seeking

their first job had a much higher representation in the October surveys. For the marginally active teenagers, however,

representation was highest in March, as shown in the following tabulation:

October March

(Percent)

Under census definitions . . . 24.1 16.3

Marginally active . . . ..... 19.2 24.5

These differences probably reflect the fact that inschool teenagers (“marginally active”) are more likely to

seek work in March for the coming summer vacation. According to INSEE officials, out-of-school teenagers (“census

definitions”) who completed their schooling in the previous

June tend to look seriously for their first job around September and October, after a summer vacation. Thus, there

97

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
are some important differences between March and October

survey results.

In 1977, INSEE began to conduct two surveys each

year—in March and October. When results of these surveys

become available, the extent of the seasonal variation between the March and October adjustment factors will be

better known.

The annual adjustment factor for the labor force has

fluctuated within a narrow range of 99.7 to 101.5. The adjusted labor force was occasionally below the labor force

under census definitions because the addition of the “marginal” labor force was more than cancelled out by the subtraction of 14- and 15-year-olds, unpaid family workers

not at work or working less than 15 hours, and other elements not included in the U.S. labor force, as discussed

earlier.

Unemployment rate

Adjusted unemployment rates are obtained by dividing the adjusted unemployed figures by the adjusted labor

force figures. These adjusted rates are higher than the unemployment rates calculated from published French data

(except in 1963). in 1959, the adjusted French unemployment rate was 2.0 percent, whereas the rate based on unadjusted data was 1.3 percent (table B-7). By 1976, the adjusted and unadjusted figures were much closer—4.6 and

4.5 percent, respectively.

Quarterly and monthly estimates

BLS estimates seasonally adjusted jobless rates adjusted to U.S. definitions for France. The method used in

making these estimates is as follows:

Unemployment. Quarterly and monthly adjustment factors

(to adjust to U.S. concepts) are derived from the annual

French labor force surveys by prorating between surveys, as

described above. These adjustment factors are applied to

the INSEE seasonally adjusted number of registered unemployed to arrive at seasonally adjusted estimates of joblessness adjusted to U.S. definitions. The seasonally adjusted

registered unemployed series is published in INSEE’s

monthly bulletin, Bulletin Mensuel de Statistique. INSEE

utilizes the additive version of the X-l 1 Variant of the U.S.

Census Bureau’s Method II seasonal adjustment program.

Table B-6. France: Adjustment of labor force data from March surveys to U.S. concepts, 1963-76

(N um bers in thousands)

Item 1963 1965 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 19751 1976

Reported civilian labor force1 2 .... 20,179 20,502 20,530 21,304 21,417 21,621 21,658 21,818 21,914 22,154 22,902 23,027

Less: Unpaid family workers:

Not at work3 ................................... 46 67 31 48 45 51 48 36

} 4 160 J 4 162

4 28 4 28

At work less than 15 hours3 *7 .... 139 162 141 86 1 1 1 135 117 124 123 125

Less: Employed persons not at

work for durable reasons3,5 ....

Less: Unemployed who had not

22 9 20 24 11 14 19 19 6 19 6 19 6 17 6 17

commenced seeking work3,7 . . .

Less: Persons not currently available

69 57 46 105 102 109 123 117 110 120 257 238

for work8 .................... .................. 58 61 67 139 148 158 158 159 156 158 215 192

Plus: Adjustment for double count9 

Adjusted civilian labor force, age 14

29 27 26 56 58 72 70 72 74 67 94 77

and o v e r............................................... 19,874 20,173 20,251 20,958 21,058 21,226 21,263 21,435 21,543 21,762 22,356 22,504

Less: 1 4 -and 15-year-olds10 ....

Adjusted civilian labor force, age

468 435 420 97 56 55 29 29 6 25 6 25 625 620

16 and o v e r......................................... 19,406 19,738 19,831 20,861 21,002 21,171 21,234 21,406 21,518 21,737 22,331 22,484

Reported civilian labor force

(census definitions)............... ...

Adjusted civilian labor force age

19,518 19,864 19,923 20,609 20,764 20,940 20,994 21,119 21,253 21,487 22,048 22,152

16 and over as percent of reported

civilian labor fo r c e ............................. 99.4 99.4 99.5 10 1.2 10 1.1 10 1.1 10 1.1 101.4 610 1.2 610 1.2 6101.3 6101.5

1 Data for April.

2 Labor force surveyed including marginally active plus estimated labor force not covered by the survey less career military

personnel.

3 Number of persons reported as "unknown" distributed proportionally.

4Through 1974, estimated as 0.7 percent of reported labor force

(data not yet published). Beginning 1975, the number at work less

than 15 hours was published. Number not at work was estimated

from 1972 proportions.

5 "Durable reasons" refers to nature of the job and personal

convenience.

Prelim inary.

7Through 1974, based on data reported in the surveys on persons who had not commenced seeking work. Beginning 1975,

based on results of specific question in survey on number of persons

who had not actively sought work in the preceding month.

8Through 1974, estimated as 4.7 percent of unemployed under

census definitions and 40.2 percent of the marginally unemployed.

Beginning 1975, based on results of the survey.

9This adjustment allows for the fact that persons may have been

excluded more than once above since they could have neither commenced seeking work nor been currently available for work. From

1968, the adjustment was made on the basis of data supplied by

INSEE. Double count for prior years estimated as 23 percent of

the above two categories.

Beginning in 1968, the labor force data relate to 15-year-olds

and over. Therefore, only 15-year-olds are omitted in 1968 and

following years. The number of persons under age 16 were estimated from the survey and were divided by the ratio of reported

civilian labor force to adjusted civilian labor force age 14 (or 15)

and over.

98

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Labor force. BLS estimates quarterly civilian xaoor force

figures based on IN SEE estimates of end-of-year civilian

employment and end-of-quarter data on the number of

employees in nonagricultural industries and other available data. The BLS estimates are then seasonally adjusted

using the U.S. Bureau of the Census X -ll seasonal adjustment program, multiplicative version.

Unemployment rate. Quarterly unemployment rates are

computed by dividing the 3-month average of seasonally

adjusted unemployment (adjusted to U.S. definitions) by

the seasonally adjusted (adjusted to U.S. definitions) labor

force. Monthly unemployment rates are calculated in a

similar way. Since estimates of the labor force are only

available quarterly, the labor force is held constant for each

of the 3 months which make up that quarter. Additionally,

the latest available labor force figure is used until enough

data are available to make a more current estimate. At that

time, quarterly and monthly jobless rates are recalculated.

Table B-7. France: Labor force and employment data before and after adjustment to U.S. concepts, 1959-76

(N um bers in thousands)

Item 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

PUBLISHED FIGURES

Registered unem ployed.................................................................. ... 141 130 111 123 140 114 142 148 196

M a le ............................... .................. ............................... 86 82 67 72 86 71 86 92 123

Female.................................................. ............................................ 55 49 45 51 54 43 55 55 73

Civilian labor fo rc e ............................... ............................................ 18,925 18,951 18,919 19,050 19,399 19,638 19,813 19,964 20,118

Total unemployed1 ...................... .................................. 254 239 203 230 273 216 269 280 365

Percent of registered ...................................................................... 180 184 183 187 195 189 189 189 186

Unemployment r a t e ........................................................................... 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.8

ADJUSTED FIGURES

Civilian labor force (rounded) ......................................................... 19,060 19,080 19,050 19,160 19,340 19,680 19,750 20,000 20,100

Percent of published figures......................................................... 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.6 99.7 100.2 99.7 100.2 99.9

Unemployed (rounded) ................................... ..................... ... 380 350 300 280 260 290 310 380 400

M a le ......................... ........................................................................ 160 153 125 115 115 127 142 175 192

Percent of registered . ......................................................... 186.2 186.2 186.2 159.3 133.5 178.9 164.6 190.1 155.9

Female ................................... ..................................................... ... . 218 194 178 167 149 163 168 203 212

Percent of registered............................................................ 395.7 395.7 395.7 327.0 275.0 378 1 305.1 369.0 289.8

Unemployment r a t e ........................................................................... 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.0

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

PUBLISHED FIGURES

Registered unemployed ......................................................... 254 223 262 338 383 394 498 840 934

Male .................................................................................................. 156 129 146 188 208 193 238 428 444

Female ............................................... .............................................. 98 94 116 150 176 201 260 412 490

Civilian labor fo rce ............................................................................... 20,176 20,434 20,750 20,958 21,155 21,388 21,715 21,733 21,863

Total unemployed1 ............................................................................ 427 340 356 446 492 450 615 889 993

Percent of registered......................................................... 168 152 136 132 128 114 123 106 106

Unemployment rate ...................... ..................................................... 2.1 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.8 4.1 4.5

ADJUSTED FIGURES

Civilian labor force (rounded) ......................................... 20,380 20,660 20,980 21,2 10 21,430 21,640 21,980 22,040 22,190

Percent of published figures......................................................... 101.0 10 1.1 101.1 10 1.2 101.3 101.2 101.2 101.4 101.5

Unemployed (ro un ded )...................................................................... 530 490 540 590 610 580 650 930 1,020

Male ......................................... ........................................................ 240 213 214 233 240 216 253 435 413

Percent of registered............................................................

154.1 164.9 146.4 124.2 115.4 112.0 106.2 101.6 93.1

Female ............................................................................................... 286 280 323 359 370 368 392 497 603

Percent of registered ............................................................ 292.2 298.0 278.4 239.0 210.5 183.3 150.8 120.7 122.8

Unemployment r a t e ......................................, .................................. 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.7 3.0 4,2 4.6

1 Until 1971 based on census definitions; thenceforth, based on

ILO definitions.

99

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Germany

The official unemployment statistics for Germany are

administrative statistics representing the number of persons

registered as unemployed at the offices of the employment

service. Since 1957, the registered unemployed series has

been supplemented by data on unemployment obtained

from a household labor force survey, the Microcensus. The

Microcensus definitions and concepts are similar to U.S.

labor force survey concepts and the Microcensus is used

as the basis for adapting German unemployment statistics

to U.S. concepts.

Unemployment

Registered unemployed. The German registered unemployed

count is taken on a specified day at the end of each month

and covers those who at some previous time registered as

unemployed and whose job application has not yet been

settled. Persons 15 years of age and over without a job or

employed for less than 20 hours per week are counted as

unemployed if they are available for work, not ill, and seeking paid employment of 20 hours per week or more. Registration is not compulsory, but it is an essential condition

for receiving unemployment benefits. The data on registrations are published monthly by the Federal Labor Office

in Amtliche Nachrichten.

The registration statistics distinguish between unemployed jobseekers and jobseekers who are not unemployed (table B-8). All jobseekers are referred to as “ar~

beitsuchende.” Unemployed jobseekers are designated as

“arbeitslosethe official German unemployment concept.

The difference between the jobseekers and the unemployed

comprises the “nichtarbeitslose arbeitsuchende,” that is,

jobseekers who are not unemployed. These are mainly persons who have a job, but are looking for a new job or a supplementary job. Also included in the “nichtarbeitslose

arbeitsuchende” are persons who are not employed and

who are seeking “insignificant” employment of less than

20 hours per week.

In 1976, the total number of jobseekers was 1,296,000,

of whom 1,060,000 were unemployed and 236,000 were

not unemployed. Of the unemployed, 84 percent were

seeking full-time work (“volizeitarbeitslose”) and the remainder were seeking 20 hours or more, but not full-time

work (“teilzeitarbeitslose”). Statistics are not published on

the number of persons working less than 20 hours per week

who are classified as unemployed.

Beginning with December 1959, persons in the construction industry who receive unemployment insurance

benefits known as “bad weather money” (payable during

the period of November 1 to March 31) are excluded from

the unemployment count. This makes a substantial difference in the registered unemployed total since construction

unemployment in Germany is generally very heavy in the

winter months; peak unemployment in January was 3 to 5

Table B-8. Germany: Statistics on the registered

unemployed, 1959-76

(Thousands)

Year

Total

number of

jobseekers

Unemployed

jobseekers1

Other

jobseekers2

19593 ............. 659 540 119

1960 ................ 395 271 124

1 9 6 1 ................ 302 181 121

1962 ................ 272 155 118

1963 ................ 303 186 118

1964 ................ 282 169 113

1965 ................ 252 147 105

1966 ................ 277 161 116

1967 ................ 579 459 120

1968 ................ 443 323 120

1969 ................ 301 179 123

1970 . . . . . . 281 149 132

1971 . . . . . . 325 185 140

1972 , ............. 403 246 156

1973 ...... 452 273 178

1974 . . . . . . 778 582 196

1975 ................ 1,274 1,074 200

1978 ................ 1,296 1,060 236

1 These are the official German unemployment figures. Some

persons with negligible employment are included.

2

Comprises jobseekers who have a job but are looking for a

new job or a supplementary job and persons who are not employed

and who are seeking work of less than 20 hours per week.

Data for 1959 include persons in the construction industry who

receive unemployment benefits known as "bad weather money."

For 1960 and later years, such persons are excluded from the

unemployed.

SOURCE: Amtliche Nachrichten (Nuremberg, German Federal

Labor Office).

times the September level in the late 1950’s. Separate figures

are available on the number of recipients of “bad weather

money.” Persons outside the construction industry who

register to receive short-time benefits have always been excluded from the registered unemployed count. Separate

figures are also collected on the number of such persons.

The yearly average of registered unemployed is computed by dividing by 12 the sum of one-half the total for

the previous December plus the monthly totals for January

through November of the current year plus one-half the

total for December of the current year. This method is

used because the counts of registered unemployed are

taken at the end of each month.

The German registered unemployed series has certain

limitations as a precise measure of unemployment. Registrants are drawn predominantly from the wage and salary

labor force. There are indications that certain unemployed

persons, particularly women and teenagers, choose not to

register. Also, unemployed persons who do not want to

work at least 20 hours a week are excluded. They would

be considered as unemployed in the U.S. and German labor

force surveys. On the other hand, registrations include a

number of part-time workers with negligible employment

(Le., working less than 20 hours per week) who want more

work. Under U.S. and German labor force survey definitions, such persons would be regarded as employed. The

100

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
fact that the count is made as of a single day instead of a

longer period tends to produce a higher figure than would

a count of persons who have not worked at all during an

entire week, as in the United States. Also, the figures

could include persons who found jobs and started working after the date on which they initially registered or

renewed their registration.

Microcensus. Since 1957 the monthly count of the registered unemployed has been supplemented by the Microcensus, a sample survey of households conducted by the

Federal Statistical Office. The survey, first taken in October

1957, was generally conducted in January, April, July, and

October until 1975. At that time, the quarterly surveys

were discontinued, and only one survey is now conducted

each year, in the last week of April or the 1st week of May,

depending on which week contains no public holiday.

Household samples of 1.0 percent (about 180,000

households in 1960 and 230,000 households currently)

were surveyed in October 1957-62 and April or May of the

following years. Surveys for the other three quarters used

a 0.1-percent sample. Summary survey results are published

periodically in the monthly Wirtschaft und Statistik. The

detailed survey results are published in Series 6 of Bevolkerung und Kultur.

The reference period for the Microcensus is the week

prior to the survey interviews. There is no specified period

for jobseeking activities related to the definition of unemployment.

The unemployed in the Microcensus are defined as

persons 14 years of age and over who are not at work in the

survey week and who state that they are unemployed or

that they are looking for work. Unemployment status is determined by the answers to two questions. The first asks

“Is this person unemployed?” The term unemployed is defined to include persons who normally have a job but are

temporarily out of work as well as persons coming out of

school and looking for an apprenticeship. Persons who

normally do not have an occupation, such as housewives

and pensioners who were not recently working, are not to

be classified as unemployed under this question.

The second question asks “Was this person looking

for work?” An affirmative answer to this question also results in classification of a person as unemployed if he did

not work in the reference week. This question is designed

to find out how many normally inactive persons are seeking

work.

The total number of unemployed persons—“erwerbslose”-consists of those classified as either unemployed in

the first question or as looking for work in the second.

Those enumerated as unemployed in the first question are

classified as unemployed whether or not they state that

they are looking for work in the second question. Thus,

there may be some inactive workseekers in the Microcensus

unemployment total.

There is also no probing into the unemployed person’s

current availability to begin work. Thus a person seeking 

work in April but only able to accept it in June is enumerated as unemployed in the April Microcensus. A sudden increase in youth unemployment in April 1968 is partly explained by the change in the school-leaving date from

March to July that year. The large youth unemployment

recorded in April 1968 includes students who reported

themselves as unemployed but who were looking for work

beginning in July. The 1977 Microcensus (for the labor

force survey of the European Community) asks for the first

time whether persons who claim to be seeking a job are immediately available for employment. The results from the

1977 Microcensus are not yet available.

There is no question concerning layoffs in the Microcensus. German statisticians believe that persons on temporary layoff are most likely classified as employed in the

Microcensus. They would probably be regarded as “with a

job but not at work.” According to German statisticians,

persons waiting to report to a new job at a later date are

probably classified as economically inactive, and temporarily ill jobseekers would be counted as unemployed.

Foreign workers in Germany are included within the

scope of the Microcensus, and unemployment data have

been shown separately for such workers in recent years.

For example, in May 1975, 134,000 unemployed foreign

workers were reported in the Microcensus. This compares

with 167,000 registered unemployed foreign workers in the

same month.

The following differences between the Microcensus

concepts and U.S. unemployment concepts have been

noted: (1) Current availability to begin work is not required in the German survey, but is required in the U.S.

definition of unemployment; (2) active jobseeking is not

required in the German survey, but in the United States a

person must have engaged in some specific jobseeking

activity within the past 4 weeks;10 (3) persons on layoff

are probably classified as employed in Germany (unless

they state they are looking for work) and as unemployed in

the United States; (4) persons waiting to report to a new

job at a later date are classified as not in the labor force in

Germany and as unemployed in the United States.

Method o f adjustment. No adjustment is made to the Microcensus unemployment figures to account for the definitional

differences noted above. The data needed for such an adjustment are not available since these categories are not

enumerated in the Microcensus. The overall effect of these

differences is believed to be small. The lack of a test of current availability and inclusion of some inactive jobseekers

tend to bias the unemployment figures in an upward direction for comparison with U.S. concepts; on the other hand,

10Unless awaiting recall from layoff or waiting to start a new job within 30 days. In these cases, the person would also be counted as unemployed even though not actively seeking work.

101

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
German Microcensus Questionnaire (Excerpt)

VI. FRAGEN AN DIE HAUSHALTSMITGUEDER

Ja 1

Nein 2

Hausfrau 1

Wchrpfl. 3

Zeit-, Berufssoldat 4

Schuler,

Studierender

an

Grund-/

Haupt-

(Volks-)/

Realschule 5

Gymnasium 0

Berufsfach-/

Fach-/Technikerschule 7

Ingen.-/Hoh.

Fachschule/

Akademie g

Hochschule/

Universiiat 9

Entfaiit —

Spaite bleibt

leer

Abkurzungen,

auch mehrere,

eintragen

Katalog siehe

letzte Seite

des Bogens

Mit

Arbeitslosengeld/

-hilfe 1

Ohne

Arbeitslosengeld/

- hiife 2

Entf. =

Spaite

bleibt

leer

Erwerbstatigkeit 1

Rente, Vermogen, Pension, Altenteil, Unterstutzung 2

Arbeits

losengeld/

-hilfe 3

IJnterhalt

durch

Eitern,

Ehemann

usw. 4

Soldat 1

Arbeitsamt 1

Private

Vermittl. 2

Zeitung 3

Person!.

Verbmdung 4

Bewerbung 5

Sonstige6

Entfaiit =

Spaite

bleibt

leer

Wenn in den

letzten 2 Jahren

beendet,

genaues Datum

eintragen,

sonst das Juhr

der Beendigung

Fragen

37—39, 41

beantworten!

Entfaiit -

Spaite bleibt

leer

01

02

03

usw.

Selbstand.,

Zw.-Meist. 1

Mithelf. 2

Beamter,

Richter 3

Angest. 4

Arbeiter 5

Heimarb. 6

Hausgew.-

treibend 7

Kfm.Lehrl.

usw. 8

Gew.Lehrl.

usw. 9

Entfaiit =

Spaite

bleibt leer

0 0

01

0 2

usw.

50 u.

mehr = 5 0

Entfaiit =

Spaite

bleibt leer

Ja 1

Nein 2

Entfaiit =

Spaite

bleibt

leer

0 0

01

0 2

usw.

V e r g e s s e n S i e n i c h t , n a c h d e r

Z W E I T E N E r w e r b s t a t i g k e i t z u f r a g e n l

bai 98 u

Stunde

Bei fri

Erwerbsi

Spaite b

nd mehr

n = 9 8

jherer

tatigkeit:

leibt leer

l

K l a r t e x t e i n t r a g e n

Entfaiit =

Spaite

bleibt

leer

Grunde

siehe

Schlussel

Entfaiit =

Spaite

bleibt

leer

Erwe rbstatigkeit und sons tige U n terhaitsque Hen Erwerbstatig keit

22 23 24 25 32 33 34 2 3 5 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

In irgendeiner

Weise regelma&ig od. gelegentlich

erwerbs- Oder

berufstatig,

hauptberuflich

oder nur nebenher, auch mithelfpnd im Familienbetrieb

Hausfrau,

Wehrpflicht.,

Berufssoldat,

Schuler,

Student

W enn Renten-,

Pensions- Oder

Unterstiitzungsernpfanger, welcher

Art sind die

Renten, Pensionsoder Unterstiitzungszahlungen ?

Arbeitslos

mit/

ohne

Arbeitslosengeid/

-hilfe

Woraus

werden

iiberwiegend

die Mittel

fur den

Lebensunterhalt

bezogen ?

Eine

Beschaftigung

wird

gesucht

durch . . .

Nur fur

Arbeitsuch.

ohne Tatigk.

Fruhere

Erwerbstatigkeit wurde

beendet.

Lfd.

Nr.

der

Person

im

Haushalt

A rbeitet bei w em

(Firma, Dienststelle, Praxis,

eigener Betrieb usw.)

O rt

(Gemeinde)

der Arbeitsstatte

G eschaftszw eig

(Branche) des Betriebes,

der Firma usw.

Gegenwartic

Tatigkeit (Ber

Tatigkeit

wird

ausgeubt als

Nur fur

Selbstandige

Anzah!

der fam.-

fremden

Arbeitskrafte

(ohne

Heimarbeiter)

Nur fur

Nichtselbst.

Geleistete

Arbeitsstunden

in der

Berichts

woche

Wenn

weniger

* sis

! 42

Stunden

geleistet,

Grund

dafur

Mit

dem

Arbeitgeber

verwandt,

verh.,

verschwagert

37 38 _ 39 40 41 _ 1 3| 14 __ — — — 42 43|44 45 46 47! 48 49|50

0 | 1 1 _ 1__ 1

0 i 1 I ! 1

0 I 1 I ! 1

0 | 2 _ J___ 1 . J__ !

0 | 2 1 1 1

0 ( 2 i 1 J 1

0 | 3 1 _L__ 1

0 | 3 __ I___

1

__L. 1

0 j 3 !

0 | 4 .. L_ i

0 | 4 1 _ 1 1

0 | 4 ________________________i -------------------------------------

1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Germany: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status

Columns 22-34. To be completed for employed and all other persons:

Column 22. Is . . . normally employed in an occasional, or full-time job, or as an unpaid family worker?

Column 25. Is . . . unemployed? If yes, does . . . receive unemployment benefits?

Column 32. What is . . . chief means o f livelihood?

-Em ploym ent

-R en t, personal fortune, pension, old-age benefits, relief benefits

-Unem ploym ent insurance or unemployment welfare assistance

—Assistance from parents or husband

-Soldier

Column 33. Was . . . seeking work by:

Applying at labor exchange

-A pplying at private employment agencies

—Newspapers

-Personal friends or trade union

-Participating in competitive exam

-O ther

Column 34. For jobseekers without a job. If job ended within last 2 years, list the precise date at which

the job ended.

Columns 3 5 4 4 . To be completed for employed persons:

Columns 35-39. Name o f employer, location, industry, occupation, and class of worker.

Column 43. Hours worked in survey week.

Column 44. If . . . worked less than 42 hours, give reason.

103

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
exclusion of persons on layoff and persons waiting to start

a new job biases the figures in a downward direction. These

two opposite effects tend to cancel each other to some extent. If a bias remains, it is likely to be that the Microcensus

unemployment figures are somewhat overstated in comparison with U.S. data. This is because the number of persons

on layoff in most years was probably virtually nil, whereas

the numbers not currently available and not actively seeking work were probably more numerous. Figures on the

number of short-time workers indicate that only in 1967

and 1974-76 could the number laid off the entire survey

week have affected the unemployment rate.

It was‘decided to discard the 0.1-percent survey results

and utilize only the 1-percent Microcensus in making the

adjustments to U.S. concepts. Before 1975, the survey was

conducted quarterly, as mentioned earlier, with a large (1-

percent) sample in the second quarter (usually) and very

small samples in the other quarters of the year. Data for

the small-sample quarters from 1971 through 1975 have

not been published. The data from the small-sample surveys, even when available, are of questionable reliability

concerning measurement of unemployment because German unemployment has been so low in most years that

sampling errors are very high. Furthermore, it was necessary to develop a method which would not depend upon

quarterly data in the future, since such data are no longer

collected. Unemployment data from the large and the

available small-sample surveys are shown in table B-9.

Some adjustments in Microcensus data, discussed below, have been made in order to: (1) Convert the survey

data to approximately the same time of the month as the

registration count; (2) exclude 14-year-olds; and (3) produce annual averages based on data for only 1 month of

each year.

1. Adjustment o f survey data to end o f month. Beginning

with 1963, all large-sample surveys have been conducted in the last full week of April or in early

May.11 During 1959-62, however, most of the surveys were conducted near the beginning of October.12

In order to simplify the prorating of adjustment factors, the reported unemployment figures for 1959-62

were roughly adjusted to end-of-month estimates on

the basis of the registered unemployed series (table

B-10).

2. Exclusion o f 14-year-olds. Since compulsory schooling is required until age 15 in Germany, 14-year-olds

should be excluded from the unemployed count. Unemployment data by age are reported in the results

of the 1-percent Microcensus each year. The proportion of the unemployed who are 14-year-olds is applied

11 In 1965, 1973, and 1976 the survey was conducted during the

first week of May; in 1975, during the second week of May.

12The October 1960 survey was conducted during the last week

of the month.

Table B-9. Germany: Unemployment according to the

Microcensus, 1959-76

(Thousands)

Date

Number

unemployed

Date

Number

unemployed

1957: October1 . . . 2431 1966: January . . . 103

1958: October1 . . . 2 342 April1 .... 49

1959: October1 . . . 214 J u l y ............. 66

I960: October1 . . . 152 October . . . 66

1961: A p r il................ 3 81 1967: January . . . 352

J u l y ................ 3 61 April1 .... 290

October1 . . . 91 J u l y ............. 2 12

1962: January .... 3 159 October . . . 191

A p r il................ 3 89 1968: January . . . 352

J u l y ................ 3 45 April1 .... 412

October1 . . . 102 J u l y ............. 308

1963: January .... 3 238 October . . . 232

April1 ............. 86 1969: January . . . 300

J u l y ................ 3 78 April1 .... 214

October .... 3 58 J u l y ............. 210

1964: January .... 139 October . . . 203

April1 ............. 97 1970: January . . . 242

J u l y ................ 63 April1 .... 167

October .... 51 July . . . . . 52

1965: January .... 118

May1 ................ 57 1971: April1 . . . . 206

J u l y ................ 72 1972: April1 .... 208

October .... 61 1973: May1 ..... 190

1974: April1 .... 381

1975: May1 ............. 918

1976: May1 ............. 944

1 Large-sample (1-percent) survey. Other surveys are the smallsample (0.1-percent) surveys.

2 Excludes Saar. 3

Excludes West Berlin.

SOURCE: Wirtschaft und Statistik (Wiesbaden, Statistiches

Bundesamt), various issues.

Table B-10. Germany: Adjustment of Microcensus unemployment1 from early-in-month to end-of-month estimate,

1959-62

(Unemployed in thousands)

Date Microcensus

unemployed

Ratio of

end-ofmonth to

early-inmonth unemployed2

Unemployed

converted

to

end-ofmonth

October 4-10,1959 . . . 214 1.03 220

October 23-29,1960 . . . 152 (3) 152

October 1-7,1961 .... 91 1.02 93

October 7-13,1962 . . . 102 1.06 108

fig u res for these surveys were reported both including and

excluding West Berlin. The figures shown here include West Berlin.2

Based on registered unemployed. Since registered unemployed

data refer to the last day of each month, end-of-month unemployment was taken as the registered unemployment figure for the

current month and early-in-month unemployment was taken as the

average of the registered unemployment in the current month and

the preceding month. Thus, the ratio for October was computed

as the registered unemployed in October divided by the average

of registered unemployed in September and October.

3Survey conducted in last week of month.

104

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to the estimated annual average unemployed each

year. The resulting number is negligible except in

1968, when an estimated 24,000 14-year-olds were

unemployed.

3. Estimation o f annual averages. Annual average adjustment factors for unemployment were derived by calculating the ratio of Microcensus unemployment

from the 1-percent surveys (adjusted to end of month

when necessary) to registered unemployment and

prorating these ratios from year to year. Thus, the

figures for October 1959 through October 1962 and

April 1963 through the latest available survey date

were prorated to obtain annual averages.

Table B-ll shows the adjustment factors used as well as

adjustment factors resulting from using alternative methods.

The method described above is “Method 1” which utilizes

the results of the 1-percent surveys, disregarding the 0.1-

percent surveys. Method 2 incorporates the 0.1-percent surveys as well as the 1-percent surveys, with prorating between

surveys. Method 3 also incorporates all surveys, but uses the

average of the four quarters (when available) of the Microcensus unemployed as an approximation of the annual average. Method 4 uses only the 1 -percent surveys and annualizes the results based on the ratio of registered unemployment in the Microcensus month to registered unemployment

for the entire year. These four methods produce unemployment rates which are quite close to each other, with the

most significant deviations occurring in 1967 and 1970

(table B-12).13

The adjustment factors indicate that the registered unemployed series normally overcounts unemployment under

survey concepts. In most years, the adjustment factor to

be applied to the registration count is less than 100. Only

in 1960 and 1968-71 was the adjustment factor over 100

(Method 1).

Labor force

. Germany makes annual average estimates of the labor

force which represent the sum of the employed under

Microcensus concepts and the registered unemployed. The

1-percent Microcensus employment data were adjusted for

seasonality on the basis of the 0.1-percent surveys, when

available. Since these small-sample surveys are no longer

conducted, the Microcensus employment data are now adjusted to annual averages on the basis of statistics on persons employed derived from notifications by employers

to the statutory social insurance scheme and to the Federal

Institute for Employment.

13 Although the differences in the adjustment factors were rather

large, the unemployment rates using the alternative methods did not

vary much because unemployment was at such low levels in Germany. Thus, adjustment factors of 124.8 (Method 1) and 100.9

(Method 3) yielded 1968 unemployment rates of 1.6 and 1.3 percent, respectively.

Table B-11, Germany: Adjustment ratios (Microcensus

unemployed as percent of registered unemployed) using

alternative methods

Year Method 11 Method 22 Method 3°

4

Method 4

1959s . . . 93,7 89 0 88.5 93.7

1960s . . . 102.4 100.8 672.7 107.0

1961s . . . 90.3 70,2 667.4 82.3

1962s . . . 96.6 72,2 70.8 106.5

1963s . . . 65.3 66.7 71.0 47.3

1964 .... 60.5 53.2 52.1 66.3

1965 .... 44.6 58.0 52.4 44.2

1966 .... 44,7 48.6 44.1 40.4

1967 .... 73.8 55.6 56.9 58.0

1968 .... 124.3 116.3 100.9 124.5

1969 .... 137.4 14S.9 129.6 138.0

1970 .... 135.7 90.6 96.0 138.3

1971 .... 119.6 115.3 ~ 128.6

1972 . . . . 90 2 - - 90.2

1973 .... 82.3 - - 83.9

1974 .... 78.1 - - 73,7

1975 .... 88.2 — — 90.1

1976 (May) 86.7 - - 86.3

1 Adjustment ratios derived from 1-percent Microcensuses and

prorated to obtain annual averages.

* Adjustment ratios derived from 0.1 -percent and 1-percent

Microcensuses and prorated to obtain annuai averages.

" Average of quarterly Microcensuses divided by annual average

registered unemployed.

4 Unemployed from 1 -percent Microcensus annualized by dividing by ratio of registered unemployed in Microcensus month to

annual average registered unemployed.

5 Adjustments made in Microcensus data to reflect end-of-month

figures and to include West Berlin.

6Ratios for 1960 and 1961 estimated (Microcensus not conducted in all four quarters).

Employed persons, according to the Microcensus, comprise (a) ail those, including unpaid family workers, who

worked as much as 1 hour during the survey week and (b)

all those who had jobs or businesses at which they had

previously worked, but from which they were temporarily

absent during the survey week because of illness or injury,

industrial dispute, vacation or other leave of absence, or

temporary disorganization of work for reasons such as bad

weather or temporary breakdown. Persons on temporary

layoff and career military personnel are also considered to

be employed.

There are four differences between the U.S. and German

concepts of the labor force. First, the United States excludes

and Germany includes career military personnel. Second,

the United States excludes and Germany includes unpaid

family workers who work less than 15 hours per week.

Third, the registered unemployed rather than the Microcensus unemployed are included. Finally, Germany includes 14-year-olds in the labor force, whereas the age at

which compulsory schooling ends is 15.

Method of adjustment. The German annual employment

estimates are adjusted by subtracting career military personnel, unpaid family workers who worked less than 15 hours

per week, and persons 14 years of age. The number of

105

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-12. Germany: Estimated annual average Microcensus unemployed and unemployment rates

based on alternative methods1

Year

Unemployed (thousands) Unemployment rates (percent)

Registered

unemployed

Estimated Microcensus unemployed Registered

unemployment

rate

Estimated Microcensus unemployment rate

Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4

1959 ............. 540 506 481 478 506 2.6 2.0 1.9 1.8 2.0

1960 ............. 271 278 273 197 290 1.3 1.1 1.1 .8 1.1

1 9 6 1 ............. 181 163 127 122 149 3 .6 .5 .5 .6

1962 ............. 154 149 1 11 109 164 1 .6 .4 .4 .6

1963 ............. 186 121 124 132 88 3 .5 .5 .5 .3

1964 ............. 169 102 90 88 1 1 2 3 .4 .3 .3 .4

1965 ............. 147 66 85 77 65 .7 .2 .3 .3 .2

1966 ............. 161 72 78 71 65 .7 .3 .3 .3 .2

1967 ............. 459 339 255 261 266 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0

1968 ............. 323 403 376 326 402 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.6

1969 ............. 179 246 268 232 247 .9 .9 1.0 .9 1.0

1970 . . . . . 149 202 135 143 206 .7 3 .5 .5 .8

1 9 7 1 ............. 185 221 213 — 238 .8 3 .8 — .9

1972 . . . . . 246 222 — — 222 1.1 3 — — .8

1973 ............. 273 225 — — 229 1.2 .9 - - .9

1974 ............. 582 455 — — 429 2.6 1.7 - — 1.6

1975 ............. 1,074 947 - — 968 4.7 3.7 - — 3.8

1976 ............. 1,060 2919 — - 915 4.6 3.6 - — 3.6

1 See table B-11 for alternative methods. NOTE: For adjustment to U.S. concepts, one further adjust2Using May 1976 factor only. ment (to exclude 14-year-olds) is made to the data shown (see

table B-13).

career military personnel can be obtained from annual estimates of the labor force excluding military personnel reported to the Statistical Office of the European Communities. The proportion of unpaid family workers who usually

work 15 hours or less was reported in the Microcensus

through 1971. Since that time, only the number who actually worked 15 hours or less in the survey week has been

reported. Figures on those who usually worked 15 hours or

less are more desirable here in order to discount the seasonal

factor in the Microcensus. Therefore, for 1972 and later

years the reported figures on unpaid family workers working 15 hours or less have been adjusted to a “usual status”

figure based on data for 1967-71, which indicate that 45

percent of the reported number of family workers working

15 hours or less usually do so. The number of 14-year-olds

is obtained from the 1-percent Microcensus results. Instead

of the registered unemployed, the Microcensus unemployed

(adjusted to an annual average as described above) are

added to the adjusted employed to arrive at the German

labor force adjusted to U.S. concepts.

Unemployment rate

Until 1965, the official German unemployment rate

was computed by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare

by dividing the registered unemployed by the estimated

wage and salary labor force. The Ministry’s estimates of

wage and salary employment were based on notifications

which employers are required to submit to the employment

exchanges showing all job hires and terminations. The

Ministry has not made such estimates since 1963; therefore,

1964 and 1965 unemployment rates were computed using

the 1963 estimate of wage and salary earners. Beginning

with 1966, the official unemployment rate has been computed by dividing the registered unemployed by the sum

of the registered unemployed and wage and salary employment based on the Microcensus.

For comparison with the United States, estimated unemployment based on the Microcensus concepts is divided

by the annual civilian labor force adjusted to U.S. concepts

to obtain the estimated unemployment rate for Germany

(table B-13).

Quarterly and monthly estimates

BLS estimates seasonally adjusted unemployment

rates adjusted to U.S. concepts for Germany. The method

used is as follows:

Unemployment. Data on the number of persons registered

as unemployed require adjustment to correspond to U.S.

definitions of unemployment. Annual adjustment factors

are derived from the Microcensus and are applied on a prorated basis to the seasonally adjusted monthly number of

registered jobless. The Deutsche Bundesbank seasonally

adjusts registered unemployment each month, including

data up to and including the most recent month, using

the multiplicative version of the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Method II, X -ll Variant, seasonal adjustment program.

The data are published in the Statistische Beihefte zu den

Monatsberichten der Deutsche Bundesbank, Reihe 4,

Saisonbereinigte Wirtschaftszahlen.

Labor force. The Deutsche Bundesbank seasonally adjusts Statistisches Bundesamt’s quarterly estimates of em106

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
plo>ed wage and salary workers, using the same metJiod as

for the registered jobless. To make current quarterly estimates of employment adjusted to U.S. definitions, BLS

applies the prior year’s ratio of employment (adjusted to

U.S. concepts) to the quarterly employed wage and salary

worker figures. BLS then adds the seasonally adjusted

quarterly number of unemployed (adjusted to U.S. concepts) to arrive at the seasonally adjusted quarterly wage

and salary labor force. Revisions are made when Statistisches Bundesamt publishes its current year estimate of

the total labor force.

Unemployment rate. Quarterly jobless rates are computed

by dividing the quarterly seasonally adjusted unemployed,

adjusted to U.S. concepts, by the quarterly seasonally

adjusted labor force, also adjusted to U.S. concepts.

Monthly rates are calculated by dividing monthly seasonally adjusted (adjusted to U.S. definitions) joblessness by

the quarterly adjusted labor force. Since estimates of the

labor force are only available quarterly, the labor force is

held constant for each of the months which comprise that

quarter. Additionally, the latest available labor force figure

is used until a more current estimate is published. At that

time, the affected quarterly and monthly jobless rates are

recalculated.

Table B-13. Germany: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76

(Numbers in thousands)

Item 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

Employment. .................................................................................. ... . 25,797 26,247 26,591 26,690 26,744 26,753 26,887 26,801 25,950

Less: Career military personnel. ...................................................

Less: Unpaid family workers working

228 293 343 401 425 456 454 481 489

less than 15 hours1 ..................................................................... 81 89 84 68 77 45 50 53 61

Less: 14-year-olds1 2 ..................................................................... .

Plus: Adjusted Microcensus

143 158 163 160 76 85 69 53 13

unemployed..................................................................... ... 506 278 163 145 121 101 66 72 339

Adjusted civilian labor force............................................................... 25,851 25,985 26,164 26,206 26,287 26,268 26,380 26,286 25,726

R ounded........................................................................................... 25,850 25,990 26,160 26,210 26,290 26,270 26,380 26,290 25,730

Registered unem ployed............................................................... 540 271 181 154 186 169 147 161 459

Microcensus unemployed3 . ............................................................... 506 278 163 149 121 102 66 72 339

Less: 14-year-olds4 ................................................................................... 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0

Adjusted unemployed ......................................................................... 506 278 163 145 121 101 66 72 339

R ounded........................................................................................... 510 280 160 150 120 100 70 70 340

Unemployment rates (percent):

As published5 ............................ ..................................................... 2.6 1.3 .8 .7 .8 .8 .7 .7 2.1

A djusted........................................................................................ . 2.0 1.1 .6 .6 .5 .4 .3 .3 1.3

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Employment........................................................................................... 25,968 26,356 26,668 26,725 26,655 26,712 26,215 25,322 25,076

Less: Career military personnel......................................................

Less: Unpaid family workers working

477 485 499 500 529 510 526 524 532

less than 15 hours1 .......................................................... 68 65 62 50 57 58 58 52 52

Less: 14-year-olds2 ........................................................................

Plus: Adjusted Microcensus

18 10 10 8 13 8 8 10 10

unemployed.................................................................................. 374 238 197 217 221 220 454 945 917

Adjusted civilian labor force............................................................... 25,779 26,034 26,294 26,384 26,277 26,356 26,077 25,681 25,399

Rounded . ......................................................................................... 25,780 26,030 26,290 26,380 26,280 26,360 26,080 25,680 25,400

Registered unem ployed..................................................................... 323 179 149 185 246 273 582 1,074 1,060

Microcensus unem ployed.................................................................. 403 246 202 221 222 225 455 947 919

Less: 14-year-olds4 ......................................................................... 29 8 5 4 1 5 1 2 2

Adjusted unem ployed......................................................................... 374 238 197 217 221 220 454 945 917

R ounded......................... .................................................................. 370 240 200 220 220 220 450 940 920

Unemployment rates (percent):

As published5 .................................................................................. 1.5 .9 .7 .8 1.1 1.2 2.6 4.7 4.6

A d justed........................................................................................... 1.4 .9 .8 .8 .8 .8 1.7 3.7 3.6

1 Ratio from 1-percent Microcensus of unpaid family workers

usually working less than 15 hours to total unpaid family workers

working less than 15 hours applied to reported annual average.

2Percentage of persons employed under age 15 from 1-percent

Microcensus applied to reported annual average employment.

3 Microcensus unemployment adjusted to an annual estimate

(see table B-12, Method 1).

4Percentage of persons unemployed under age 15 from 1-percent

Microcensus applied to reported annual average unemployment.

5 Registered unemployed as a percent of the wage and salary

labor force.

Digitized for FRASER 

107

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Great Britain

British unemployment statistics are the result of collection procedures, concepts, and definitions that differ

substantially from those used in the United States. The

British data are based on a count of registrants at employment offices (now called “Jobcenters”) or the separate

careers offices for young people. Adjustment to U.S. concepts is particularly difficult because, unlike all other countries studied here, Britain did not conduct a regular household survey until 1971. Adjustments for earlier years are

based primarily on the results of the April 1961 population

census and the April 1966 “sample census” of Britain, in

which questions were asked similar to those of the U.S.

labor force survey.

The introduction of the General Household Survey in

1971 fills significant gaps in our knowledge of British labor

force characteristics. For instance, it provides annual average

unemployment rates under definitions quite close to U.S.

definitions. Figures from the censuses require many adjustments to adapt them to U.S. concepts and they relate to

only one point in time—a week in April. The Household

Survey also provides the first indication of the number of

people classified as “looking for work” who were not actively doing so. Finally, the government has decided not to

hold a mid-decade partial census as in 1966. Therefore, the

yearly figures on population structure from the General

Household Survey will become more and more important

in filling the statistical gap between 1971 and the next

decennial census. The results of the 1971 through 1974

surveys have been published and are analyzed here. When

results of the later surveys become available, some revisions may have to be made in the adjusted data for 1975

onward.

Prior to the publication of the 1971 General Household Survey, British unemployment rates were adjusted to

U.S. concepts based upon the 1961 census and 1966 sample

census. For the years after 1966, adjustments based upon

the 1966 sample census were applied. The use of adjustment

factors from a year when unemployment was low to adjust

data for years when unemployment was high is subject to a

substantial margin of error. In view of the results of the

1971 household survey, the previously published adjusted

unemployment rates for the period 1967-72 were significantly overstated. The 1971 survey indicates that the proportion of unemployed persons who register increases

substantially as unemployment increases. The inverse of

this relationship was confirmed in the 1973 survey results:

The proportion of unemployed persons who registered decreased as unemployment declined.

Unemployment

Registered unemployed. The regularly published British unemployment statistics are based on a count of registrants at

employment offices or youth employment service careers offices as of the second Thursday in the month.14 Registrants

must be seeking full-time work and be available to begin

work currently. The count includes claimants to unemployment benefits and persons who are not claiming benefits,

but it excludes persons temporarily laid off and severely

disabled people who are unlikely to obtain work other than

under special conditions. Separate figures are compiled for

persons temporarily laid off.

The total registrations count includes unemployed

“school leavers,” defined as persons under 18 years of age

who have not entered employment since terminating fulltime education. However, adult students were excluded

from the unemployed beginning in March 1976. Adult

students are defined as persons age 18 or over who are

registered for temporary employment during a school vacation, at the end of which they intend to continue in fulltime education. Separate figures are still published on the

number of adult students registered.

Until the mid-1970’s, very few adult students registered as unemployed. However, beginning in about 1973,

the British National Union of Students has been publicizing among college students the advantages of registering as unemployed during vacation periods. Although

students are usually not eligible for unemployment benefits, they can claim supplementary benefits of approximately £7 per week. A record number of 121,000 adult

students were registered as of January 8, 1976, constituting 9 percent of all those registering as unemployed

and prompting British officials to examine their statistical treatment of such students. The Department of Employment subsequently decided to exclude adult students

from the unemployed count, with the rationale that, unlike school leavers, students are not looking for permanent

work but only for a vacation job or a passport to supplementary benefits. A change in administrative regulations

was made for the 1976-77 school year under which the

financial incentive to register during the short vacation

breaks at Christmas and Easter was taken away. During

summer vacations, students will still be eligible for supplementary benefits.

Registration is not compulsory but is required for receipt of unemployment benefits under the National Insurance Scheme or, for persons of working age and capable of

work, allowances under the Supplementary Benefits (formerly termed “national assistance”) programs. Supplementary

benefits are payable to those unemployed persons who do

not qualify for unemployment benefits or whose income,

including unemployment benefits, falls short of their

assessed needs and resources. In addition, employed persons not eligible for benefits may register to take advantage

of the free services. In the past, the unemployment service

made about 20 percent of all adult placements.15

14Prior to October 1975, the unemployment count was taken as

of the Monday nearest the middle of the month.

15Manpower Services Commission, Annual Report 1974-75 (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1974), p. 19.

108

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Persons who register as unemployed receive credits

toward their national insurance contributions. These credits

are received even if persons have exhausted their benefits

and, under 1975 legislation, even if they have been disqualified from receiving benefits. These credits provide a further

incentive to register since they count toward a person’s eligibility for retirement pension.

The completeness of coverage of the British unemployment statistics is a function of the extent to which persons looking for work register at the employment offices.

Failure to register can occur for several reasons. Some persons looking for work and eligible for benefits may decide

not to register immediately in order to avert the possibility

of having to accept an undesirable job, if offered, on penalty

of being disqualified from benefits.

Persons who are out of work and sick will be registered

as such and not as unemployed. They are not entitled to

register as unemployed and claim benefits since they cannot

satisfy the condition of being available for work. Persons

registered as unemployed who fall sick are transferred to

the sickness register maintained by the Department of Health

and Social Security. However, some persons may register as

nonclaimants to benefits when they are nearly recovered

from their illness in order to find a job quickly.

Persons also may not register because they are ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Such persons

include: (1) Married women and workers over retirement

age (65 for men; 60 for women) who may accept the option of not joining the National Insurance System;16 (2)

teenagers seeking their first job and other new entrants

and reentrants to the labor force1 7 (persons must have at

least 26 weeks of employment covered by the unemployment insurance system before they are eligible for benefits); (3) persons who have voluntarily quit their previous

job or who were discharged for cause (such persons are ineligible for benefits for a maximum of 6 weeks); and (4)

previously self-employed persons and unpaid family workers.

Of course, some members of the above groups may register

in order to obtain supplementary benefits, credits toward

national insurance contributions, or help in finding a job.

Married women are rarely eligible for supplementary benefits, but members of the other groups listed above may be

eligible.

16 According to a report in the British publication Labour Research, 75 percent of British married women “opt out” of the

National Insurance Scheme. (See “Unemployment Still Rising,”

Labour Research, October 1970, p. 155). This represents an increase from 60 percent estimated by the Department of Employment in 1960. 17

17 Young persons under 18 seeking their first employment who

register for job placement with the youth employment service

careers office are included in the British registered unemployment

count. However, there is no compulsion to register and, in 1971,

only about 15,000 school leavers who had not yet been in insured

employment were included in the British registered unemployed

total. By 1975, this figure had risen to 45,000 as labor market conditions worsened considerably.

It should be noted that, under the Social Security Act

of 1975, women who marry after April 6, 1977, will no

longer have the option of not joining the National Insurance System. The Department of Employment expects that

removal of this option will result in a large increase in female

unemployment registrations. Preliminary forecasts suggest

that about 580,000 women will have lost the opportunity

to “opt out” of the system by April 1978 and that this

number will increase to about 2.2 million by 1988.

In two respects, British registered unemployment

data are more inclusive than U.S. unemployment statistics.

First, the British data include those out of work on the day

of the count who worked during the rest of the week. Such

persons would be counted as employed in the United States.

Second, workers may continue to register as unemployed

even though they have really given up hope of finding

work. Such persons would be considered as discouraged

workers in the U.S. labor force survey, and hence, would be

enumerated as not in the labor force. Inmost other respects,

however, British unemployment statistics are less comprehensive than those obtained from the U.S. labor force survey. The extent of undercount can be estimated by analysis of statistics from population censuses and the General

Household Surveys.

Census statistics. Unemployment statistics, differing in concepts from the registered unemployed series, are available

from the decennial population census of Great Britain. The

most recent censuses were conducted in April 1961 and

April 1971. Results of the 1971 population census are not

analyzed here, however, because of the availability of the

General Household Survey (GHS) for that year. Definitions

used in the GHS are more closely comparable with U.S.

concepts than the census statistics.

In addition, British statistical authorities conducted

what they termed a “sample census” in April 1966, which

also yielded detailed statistics on unemployment. Data were

not collected in exactly the same way in 1961 and 1966,

however, and certain adjustments must be made to put the

two sources on an equivalent basis.

Although the population censuses are the major source

for evaluating the British unemployment figures for the

1960’s, they have important limitations. A major limitation

of the decennial censuses is that persons reported as unemployed were not asked whether they were registered at the

employment office. In the 1966 sample census and the

General Household Surveys, this question was asked. In addition, the decennial censuses and the 1966 sample census

are self-enumerations-i .e., the respondent fills in the forms

himself. The Household Survey utilizes experienced interviewers, trained to interpret the questions carefully. Also,

the more probing questions asked in the Household Survey

allow for more precise counts of the unemployed. Finally,

the Household Survey relates to the full year whereas the

censuses relate to only 1 week in April.

In the 1966 sample census, persons were classified as

“out of employment” if they were: (1) Registered as unem109

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ployed; (2) not registered but otherwise looking for work;

(3) unable to seek work because of temporary sickness or

injury; or (4) had found a job and were waiting to start

work at a future date.

In the 1961 census, the definition of “out of employment” simply stated “Economically active persons out of

employment during the whole of the week before the

census, or ceasing to be employed during that week . . . ,

but expecting to work again.” Also included were persons

who were unable to seek work because of sickness or injury. In both the 1961 and 1966 censuses, persons at school

(including university) were classified as economically inactive even if they were seeking work or did paid work during holidays, weekends, or other free time.

The 1961 census provided data on the number of persons “out of employment” according to two categories:

sick and all other. In 1966, additional detail was obtained

as to whether persons “out of employment” were registered

at employment or careers offices. In 1961, only data with

reference to the week preceding census day, April 23, were

collected. Registered unemployed counts were taken on

April 10 and May 15, 1961; therefore, there is no direct

correspondence between registration and census dates for

1961. The 1966 census provided information as of the census day as well as the census week. The Monday of census

week in 1966, April 18, corresponded to the date of the

registered unemployed count for April.

Data from these censuses indicate that the registration statistics undercount unemployment in Great Britain

to a large extent. The concept “out of employment” used

in the British censuses is fairly close in definition to the

U.S. concept of “unemployed.” However, there are some

important differences between the British census and U.S.

survey definitions which should be accounted for before

any conclusions are drawn.

A post-enumeration survey of the 1961 census indicated that the number of married women who reported

themselves as economically active needed to be increased

by 5 percent; for single, widowed, and divorced women, the

corresponding figure was 1 percent. Furthermore, the Ministry of Labor (now Department of Employment) stated

that these may well be underestimates of the census undercount.18 The 1966 sample census involved as underenumeration of 1.5 percent for all categories of persons.19

In the 1961 census, anyone who had a job but became unemployed during the census week was counted as

“out of employment.” The 1966 census data, as of census

day, also include as “out of employment” persons who

worked later in the week, but, in addition, the data provide

information on the number of persons out of work the

Ministry o f Labour Gazette, November 1965, p. 479.

19 Unemployment Statistics: Report o f an Inter-Departmental

Working Party (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, November

1972), p. 33.

entire week. Persons who do any work at all during the

survey week are classified as employed in the United States.

Some persons who were enumerated as “out of employment, sick” in the censuses would probably not be

counted as unemployed under U.S. definitions. This may

have resulted from misinterpretation of the census questionnaire by persons permanently disabled or suffering

illnesses of more than a temporary nature.20 Also, persons

collecting sickness or injury benefits would be likely to

classify themselves as “out of employment, sick” even if

they were not interested in obtaining a job when able to

work again.

Persons on temporary layoff were classified as

employed in the censuses. They would be counted as

unemployed in U.S. statistics.

In the United States, a person must have taken active

steps to find work in the past 4 weeks to be classified as unemployed (unless on layoff or waiting to start a new job).

Neither the 1961 nor the 1966 census provided information

on whether persons who said they were seeking work

had actually taken steps to find work, Some information

on this point was obtained from the household surveys.

Method o f adjustment based on census statistics. Coefficients of adjustment were derived from the 1961 and 1966

census results and applied to the regularly published British

statistics on the registered unemployed. Adjustment factors

for 1962 through 1965 were interpolated from the 1961

results. Factors for 1959 and 1960 were assumed to be

the same as for 1961. Because the degree of undercount

varies considerably by age and sex, four separate adjustment factors were derived—for adult men, adult women,

teenage boys, and teenage girls. Teenagers are defined as

persons 15 to 19 years of age.

Derivation of adjustment factors from the 1961 and

1966 censuses required several modifications in the published census results in order to account for the differences

noted above between the British censuses and the U.S.

labor force survey (tables B-14 and B-15). Four adjustments

were made:

1. Increasing the number o f unemployed adult women

in the 1961 census to account for those improperly enumerated as economically inactive. Based on the post-enumeration survey of the 1961 census, economically active married

women should be increased by 195,000 and economically

active single, widowed, and divorced women by 39,000.

These uncounted women were persons who regarded their

principal occupation as that of housewife or home duties

and failed to enumerate themselves as employed, even

though they were working at a part-time job, or as unemployed, even though they were looking for work.

20 A follow-up survey of the 1966 sample census supports this

conclusion. See Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Social

Survey Division, A Quality Check on the 1966 10 Percent Sample

Census o f England and Wales (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery

Office, 1972), p. 80.

Digitized 

110

for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
It is a safe assumption that a high proportion of these

omitted women were unemployed at the time of the census.

In the absence of any information on this point, for this

study it was arbitrarily assumed that 75 percent of the

undercount represents part-time workers and 25 percent

represents unemployed workers. This yields an upward adjustment of 59,000 to the adult women “out of employment” in the 3961 census. No similar adjustment was needed

for the 1966 census results, since underenumeration was

apparently proportionally the same for all groups (1.5 percent). A 1.5-percent increase in all categories, then, would

not change the ultimate adjustment factors.

2. Excluding persons classified as unemployed who

worked at any time during census week. The 1966 census

indicated that 4 to 7 percent of those reported as “out of

employment” on census day actually did some work during

the week (proportions varied by the four age/sex categories

for which adjustments were determined and also by

whether persons were registered or not registered as unemployed). No data were collected on the number of persons

classified as “out of employment” who worked during the

census week in 1961; therefore, the 1966 proportions were

assumed applicable to the 1961 data for adjustment purposes.

3. Adjusting downward the number o f persons reported as (iout o f employment, sick. ” A very large number

of persons were enumerated as “out of employment, sick”

in both the 1961 and 1966 censuses. In 1966,31 percent of

the total number of persons “out of employment” on census day were listed as sick, down from 44 percent in 1961.

According to the 1966 census, only 10 percent of all

persons registered as unemployed were also reported as sick;

however, 45 percent of the unregistered persons “out of

employment” were reported as sick. The 1961 census provided no data according to whether a person “out of employment” was registered or not registered.

It is assumed that the registered unemployed who

were also sick in the 1966 census would be classified as unemployed under U.S. definitions (given above adjustment

for those who worked sometime during the week). However, the unregistered unemployed who were sick probably

included a substantial number of persons who would not be

counted as unemployed in the United States. In order to

arrive at a reasonable estimate, it was assumed that the proportion of persons registered as unemployed and also sick

is the same as the proportion of unregistered persons who

were sick.

Using this method of estimation, only 24,400 of the

185,100 unregistered, sick (adjusted to exclude those who

worked during the week) in 1966 are assumed to be unemployed by U.S. definitions. In light of the results of the

1971 Household Survey, this appears to be a reasonable

estimate. Again, 1966 relationships had to be assumed for

1961.

4. Subtracting persons not actively seeking work.

The censuses do not provide any information on this point.

However, the 1971 General Household Survey indicates

that 22.3 percent of the number of persons seeking work

but not registered as such had not actually taken any steps

to find work in the survey week. No details were given by

age or sex. Allowing for the possibility that some may have

sought work in the previous 4 weeks, this percentage was

scaled down to 15 percent for adjustment purposes. Thus,

15 percent of the “not registered, other” category—adjusted

to exclude persons waiting to start a new job—was subtracted for each age/sex group.

No adjustment is included above for persons on

temporary layoff. Since figures are available each year on

which to base an estimate of the number of such persons,

an adjustment is made on table B-18 rather than on tables

B-14 through -16 to include them in the unemployed count.

There is also no adjustment made to account for the fact

that all full-time students are classified as economically inactive in the censuses. There is no information available as

to the degree to which such persons register as unemployed.

The Department of Employment began to separately identify registered unemployed adult (age 18 and over) students

in July 1971 and has made annual estimates back to 1967.

Further information on adult students appears in the section on the General Household Survey.

In summary, the numbers of registered and unregistered unemployed persons in the 1961 and 1966 censuses were adjusted to exclude those who did some work

during the census week; further adjustments were made

to the unregistered unemployed to exclude persons who

were not actually seeking work. These adjustments deflate considerably the number of persons reported as unemployed for comparability with U.S. concepts. For example, 61 percent of the persons reported as “out of

employment” in the 1961 census and 70 percent in the

1966 census are considered to be unemployed under

U.S. concepts.

The adjusted unemployed totals were compared with

the registered unemployed count for each of the four age/

sex groups. The census day registration count was available

from the results of the 1966 census; in the 1961 census,

however, such data were not collected. For 1961, the adjustment factors were calculated based on interpolations

of registered unemployed data made by the Department

of Employment. The resultant adjustment factors to be

applied to the regularly published unemployment statistics

were as follows:

1961 1966

Adult m en ............................................................ 22 38

Adult women . ................ ............................... . 93 182

Teenage boys ........................................................ 123 65

Teenage g ir ls ........................................................ 152 101

The method of applying these factors is described later in

the section titled “Combining the census and survey analyses.”

I l l

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
These figures indicate that the propensity for unemployed adults to register declined between 1961 and 1966,

whereas the teenage propensity to register increased. These

changes in the propensity to register were unrelated to cyclical factors since recorded unemployment was 1.4 percent

in both 1961 and 1966. The increased propensity to register

on the part of teenagers is probably related to a more active

effort by the Youth Employment Service. During the early

1960’s much criticism was leveled at the service, perhaps

spurring it to greater efforts to register young people.21

A partial explanation for the large increase in underregistration or decline in the propensity to register of adults

may have been the growing number of workers receiving

payments in lieu of notice of dismissal. Such persons are

ineligible to draw unemployment benefits simultaneously

and, hence, would probably delay registration. Notice of

dismissal (with length of notice based on length of service)

became compulsory under the “Contracts of Employment

Act” of 1963.22

Another element in the explanation is the Redundancy

Payments Act of 1965 which gave workers the right to

claim severance pay from their employers based on age and

21 The Youth Employment Service was reviewed by a Working

Party of the National Youth Employment Council which published

its report in December 1965. The report made a number of recommendations for improving the work of the service: (1) Youth employment offices should establish earlier contact with young people

at school and with their parents; (2) there should be closer partnership between the service and the schools in the preparatory stages

of career guidance; (3) the staffing of the service should provide

for more specialization in dealing with the needs of particular

groups of young people; and (4) the service should experiment with

more intensive methods of following up the progress of young

people at work. Action was taken to promote the further

development of the service along the lines recommended in the

report. 2 2 *This law imposes upon employers the obligation of giving a

minimum period of notice to all employees continuously employed

tor over 26 weeks, as follows: 1 week’s notice for those with up to 2

years’ service; 2 weeks for 2-5 years’ service; and 4 weeks for service

of 5 years or more.

Table B-14. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the 1961 census

(Numbers in thousands)

Item Total

Adults Teenagers3

Male Female Male Female

Registered unemployed on Monday of census week2 . 300.0 201.0 75.0 14.0 10,0

Out of employment3 . ....................................................... 734.6 446.3 4217.7 37.7 32.9

Registered2 ............................................................... ... . 300.0 201.0 75.0 14.0 10.0

Sick5 ............................................................................... 29.4 19.3 8.5 .6 1.0

Other5 ............................................................................ 270.6 181.7 66.5 13.4 9.0

Not registered...................................................... 434.6 245.3 142.7 23.7 22.9

Sick ..................................................................... ... 268.1 192.2 65.4 4.1 6.4

Other ............................................................................

Percent unemployed on Census Monday

who did not work in census week:6

166.5 53.1 477.3 19.6 16.5

R egistered......................................... ......................... — 96.0 93.9 93.9 92.5

Not registered...................................................................

Census unemployed adjusted to exclude

those who worked in census week: 7

93.2 93.2 93.4 94.3

R egistered......................................................................... 285.8 193.0 70.4 13.1 9.3

Not registered.................................................................. 405.3 228.6 133.0 22.1 21.6

Sick ............................................................................... 249.9 179.1 61.0 3.8 6.0

Other ................... ........................................................

Unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts:

155.4 49.5 72.0 18.3 15.6

R egistered......................................................................... 285.8 193.0 70.4 13.1 9.3

Not registered................................................................... 172.4 54.8 81.2 19,1 17.3

Sick®............................................................................... 17.0 5.3 9.2 .8 1.7

Other ............................................................................ 155.4 49.5 72.0 18.3 15.6

Less: Persons not actively seeking work9 ...................... 11.7 2.7 6.6 1.0 1.4

Total adjusted unem ployed............................................... 446.5 245.1 145.0 31.2 25.2

Percent of registered unemployed ................................ 149 122 193 223 252

Adjustment facto r................................................... 49 22 93 123 152

115- to 19-year-olds.

2There were no questions asked on whether persons were registered as unemployed in the 1961 census, The data shown are interpolations by the Department of Employment from the registration counts of April 10 and May 15.

3 Data (except for the registered unemployed) relate to persons "out of employment" the entire census week as well as to

persons who had a job but became unemployed during the week.

4 Includes 59,000 women not reported as unemployed in the

1961 census. This represents an adjustment for the undernumeration of economically active women.

5 Breakdown of registered unemployed into "sick" and "other"

estimated by using 1966 proportions.

6Figures from 1966 census. Such data were not collected in 1961,

7Estimated by applying above proportions of persons who did

not work in census week to figures reported in census which include some persons who worked during census week.

8Calculated by assuming that ratio of "not registered, sick" to

"not registered, other" is the same as ratio of "registered, sick" to

"registered, other."

9 Estimated as 15 percent of the "not registered, other" category,

adjusted to exclude persons waiting to start a new job. (According

to the 1971 General Household Survey, 63 percent of males and 39

percent of females in the "not registered, other" category were

waiting to start a new job.)

1 1 2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-15. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the 1966 census

(Numbers in thousands)

Total

Adults Teenagers1

item

Male Female Male Female

Registered unemployed on Monday of census week2 . 296.3 194.2 57.3 26.2 18.6

Out of employment3 .................................. 731.2 393.5 238.6 50.6 48.5

Registered . ...................................................................... 296.3 194.2 57.3 26.2 18.6

Sick ............................................................................... 28.0 18.7 6.5 1.1 1.7

Other ......................................................................... . 268.3 175.5 50.8 25.1 16.9

Not registered.................................................................. 434.8 199.4 181.3 24.3 29.8

Sick ............................................................................... 198.5 116.1 69.5 4.1 8.8

Other .....................................................................

Percent unemployed on census Monday

who did not work in census week:

236.3 83.3 111.8 20.2 21.0

Registered ......................................................................... - 96.0 93.9 93.9 92.5

Not registered ................................ ..................................

Census unemployed adjusted to exclude

those who worked in census week:4

93.2 93.2 93.4 94.3

Registered ................................... ............................ 282.2 186.4 53.8 24.7 17.3

Not registered ................................................................... 405.6 185.8 169.0 22.7 28.1

Sick ................................................... . ................... ... 185.1 108.2 64.8 3.8 8.3

Other ................................... . .................................. .

Unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts:

220.5 77.6 104.2 18.9 19.8

Registered....................................... ............................... 282.2 186.4 53.8 24.7 17.3

Not registered . ................................ ............................... 244.9 85.9 117.5 19.7 21.8

Sick5 ............................................................................... 24.4 8.3 13.3 .8 2.0

Other ...................................................................... . . 220.5 77.6 104.2 18.9 19.8

Less: Persons not actively seeking work6 ...................... 16.7 4.3 9.5 1.1 1.8

Total adjusted unemployed ............................................ 510.4 268.0 161.8 43.3 37.3

Percent of registered ...................................................... 173 138 282 165 201

Adjustment facto r...................................................... ... . 73 38 182 65 101

115- to 19-year-oids.

2 Data on registrations were collected in the 1966 census,

3 According to status of persons on Monday of census week.

4 Estimated by applying above proportions of persons who did

not work in census week to figures as of census Monday.

5Calculated by assuming that ratio of "not registered, sick" to

"not registered, other" is the same as ratio of "registered, sick" to

"registered, other."

6 Estimated as 15 percent of the "not registered, other" category

adjusted to exclude persons waiting to start a new job. (According

to the 1971 General Household Survey, 63 percent of males and 39

percent of females in the "not registered, other" category were

waiting to start a new job.)

Table B-16. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the 1971 General Household Survey (GHS)

Item

Total Adults Teenagers1

Male Female Male Female Male Female

GHS data inflated to universe

levels:2

T o t a l ................................................... 582,000 357,000 493,000 285,000 89,000 72,000

Looking for work ...................... 446,000 224,000 — — —

Registered ........... 412,000 104,000 — - ~ ~ -

Not registered . ....................... 34,000 120,000 — — — —

Persons in "looking for work"

category not actively seeking

work3 . , . ............................................ 5,000 18,000 4,000 14,000 1,000 4,000

Adjusted unemployed4 .......................... 577,000 339,000 489,000 271,000 88,000 68,000

Registered unemployed5 ...................... 640,000 119,000 562,000 83,000 78,000 36,000

Adjusted unemployed as percent

of registered unemployed . . . . , 90 285 87 327 113 189

Adjustment factor. . . . . . . . . . . “ 10 185 ” 13 227 13 89

115- to 19-year-olds. In the GHS, data are not shown separately

for the age group 15-19. Figures are shown for 15- to 17-year-olds

and 18- to 24-year-olds. The number of 18- to 19-year-olds in the

18-24 age group was estimated based on the results of the 1971 population census.

2 Universe unemployment estimates were not published in the

GHS. The figures shown were derived by estimating male and female civilian employment from other sources and utilizing the

male and female unemployment rates reported in the GHS to solve

for unemployment in the following relationship: U + (E + U) = R

(where U = unemployment; R = unemployment rate; E = employment).

3 Estimated as 15 percent of persons looking for work, but not

registered. Broken down into adult and teenage components according to same proportions as total unemployment.

4Total unemployment less persons not actively seeking work.

“ As reported by Department of Employment.

113

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
length of service. At the maximum, the redundancy payments can provide 30 weeks’ pay. Where redundancy payments are made, the initial effect is that the newly unemployed person will not be forced to register at the employment office because of an immediate need for money. Such

a person can take the time to look for suitable work and

not be obliged to be available at all times to answer the employment office’s summons when a vacancy occurs.

The General Household Survey. A new type of survey, the

General Household Survey, was conducted in Great Britain

for the first time in 1971. It is a continuous multipurpose

sample survey covering a total of about 12,000 private

(noninstitutional) households containing about 35,000

people over the year. Although conducted monthly, the

survey is designed so that the minimum period over which

it is representative of Great Britain is a quarter-year; successive quarters are added together to provide annual figures.

Results of the first year’s interviews were published in

1973; the 1972 through 1974 surveys were published in

1975 through 1977.23

The survey collects information about employment,

unemployment, housing, education, health, mobility, and

household makeup in such a way that each subject can be

related to the others. It provides much information on

social structure and trends.

A comparison between midyear estimates based on

the 1971 census and GHS annual results indicates that the

GHS gives a good representation of the population in private

households. However, young people aged 15 to 24 may be

underrepresented to some degree in the GHS; married

women are probably slightly overrepresented.

The first two surveys covered the population 15 years

of age and over. In 1973, when the school-leaving age was

raised to 16, the survey also began to cover 16-year-olds

and over. The Armed Forces are not excluded from the

labor force by definition; they would be included if they

reside in private households. However, most military personnel reside in military establishments which are not covered by the sample.

Employed persons, by GHS definition, are persons

who had a job for pay or profit in the reference week, even

if it was only for a few hours. Casual or seasonal workers

are counted as employed only if they were working during

the specified week. Persons absent from work because of

holiday, strike, illness, or temporary layoff are regarded as

employed. Unpaid family workers were classified as economically inactive in the 1971 through 1975 surveys. Beginning in 1976, wives working 15 hours or more in their

husbands’ businesses have been treated as employed whether

2 3Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Social Survey Division, The General Household Survey: Introductory Report (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1973); The General Household Survey 1972 (London, HMSO, 1975); The General Household Survey 1973 (London, HMSO, 1976); and The General Household Survey 1974 (London, HMSO, 1977).

they were paid or not. Since the great majority of family

workers are paid in Great Britain, this change will have a

very small effect.

Full-time students who worked part time were counted

as employed in the 1971 survey, unlike the practice in the

censuses where full-time students are regarded as economically inactive. In 1972 and subsequent household surveys,

however, working full-time students were placed in the

economically inactive category. In 1972, data both including and excluding the working students were published.

These data indicate that the annual average number of

working students is so small that their exclusion does not

affect the unemployment rate.

Persons taking courses in government training centers

are normally classified as economically inactive in the GHS

since the stipend they receive is not considered a wage payment. However, if an employer pays an employee to attend

a course at a government training center, the person would

be classified as employed.

Unemployed persons, by GHS definitions, consist

of those who, in the reference week, were looking for work,

would have looked for work if they had not been temporarily sick, or were waiting to take up a job they had already

obtained. Because the Household Survey is conducted by

experienced interviewers rather than by self-enumeration

(as the census), the category of persons who would have

been looking for work but for temporary illness is more

precisely determined. Interviewers are given a definition of

“temporary” for this question in the Household Survey—

i.e., an illness lasting 28 days or less. No such definition

appeared in the census questionnaires or instructions.

As noted earlier, persons on temporary layoff are regarded as employed rather than unemployed. Full-time

students who were looking for work would be counted as

unemployed in 1971 and not in the labor force in 1972 and

following years. The number of students looking for work

was apparently almost nil in 1972. It should be noted that

students in boarding schools are not surveyed in the GHS,

which relates to private households only. Thus, students

are most likely underrepresented in the GHS.

Persons who said they were looking for work in the

GHS were asked, additionally, what steps they took to find

work in the survey week. In 1971, this question elicited the

fact that 22.3 percent of the people looking for work but

not registered as unemployed did nothing more than look

at job vacancies in the newspapers or simply wait for

“something to turn up.”

In 1971, the GHS did not divide those waiting to take

up jobs and those temporarily sick by whether or not they

were registered. Data on the unregistered unemployed were

restricted to persons who said they were looking for work

in the survey week. In the 1972 and 1973 surveys, questions

on registration as unemployed were asked of persons looking for work and persons waiting to start a new job. in

1974 and following surveys, all categories of unemployed

persons were asked whether they were registered as unem114

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
British Genera- Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

IN CONFIDENCE

Date of Interview•

GENERAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

INDIVIDUAL SCHEDULE

ss 457/3B

DAY MONTH YEAR

Time Individual Schedule started

AREA. SER. HLD.

PER.

TO ALL

EMPLOYMENT

Were you working for pay or profit

at any time last week - that is the 

7 days ending last Sunday?

IF NO

(a) Even though you weren1t

working did you have a

job which you were away

from last week?

Yes .......... .

N o--- * X ASK (a)

Yes ••••••••••••••

No ---- ASK (1)

IF NO

(l) Last week were you

PROMPT AND

RING FIRST

THAT

APPLIES

waiting to take up a job which you had

already obtained? ................

out of employment but looking for work? ..

or would you have looked for work but for

temporary sickness or injury? ..•.

NONE OF THESE

IF CODED 1 OR 3-5 AT Q.l

2. Do you consider yourself to be a part-time Part-time

worker or a full-time worker? Full-time

3. Do you consider yourself to be a seasonal

worker - that is, someone who reckons to Yes .....

work part of the year only? No .... ..

MAIN JOB LAST WEEK (MOST RECENT IF CODED 3, 4 OR 5 AT Q.l)

NEVER WORKED, RING -

4• Occupation ......................................

Industry

OFF. USE

I

II

III

employee ......

self-employed .

IF MANAGER, SUPERINTENDENT OR SELF-EMPLOYED

IF NOT MANAGER ETC, DNA

CODE

1

2

1

2

(a) Number of employees in

the establishment

25 or more

1 - 2 4 .....

N i l ......

1

2

0

NOW REFER BACK TO Q. 1

If coded i go to Q. 5 on page 2

If coded 3 go to Q.l? on page 7

If coded 4 go to Q, 16 on page 7

If coded go to Q.19 on page 8

GO TO Q.2

GO TO Q.2

>GO TO Q.2

GO TO Q.23

ON PAGE 9

115

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TO THOSE WORKING LAST WEEK (CODED 1 AT Q .l)

5. L ast week did you have any o th er job or b u s in e s s

in a d d itio n to th e one you have j u s t to ld me about?

IF YES

(a) O ccupation ........................................................................

In d u stry ..............................................................................

British General Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

em ployee ....

self-e m p lo y e d

CODE

Yes

No

1 ASK (a)

2 ASK Q .6

OFF. USE

I ______

II

........ 1

____.... 2

6. How many hours a week do you u s u a lly work (in your main jo b )

ex clu d in g meal breaks and overtim e? ------------- - ........-......-.....

7. Were you away from work a t a l l l a s t week

fo r reaso n s o th er than b u sin ess?

Yes , .

No . . .

IF YES

(a) Why were you away from work?

Own i l l n e s s or a c c id e n t . . .

H oliday ...........................................

S tr ik e a t own p la c e o f work

S h o r t-tim e /la y o f f .................

Began or l o s t job in week .

Other (SPECIFY) .........................

1 ASK (a)

2 SEE Q .8

1

2

3

4

5

6

ASK (b)

>ASK (c)&

(d)

(b) Were you p a id , or w i l l you be p a id , any

N a tio n a l In su rance S ick n ess B e n e fit

for l a s t week?

Yes

No

(1) Did t h is in clu d e or were you

a ls o paid any supplem entary

allow an ce?

ALTERNATIVE WORDING WHERE APPROPRIATE

W ill t h is in clu d e or w ill you a ls o be

p aid any supplem entary allow ance?

(c ) When did t h is p erio d away from work

s ta r t? date ..........

(d) When d id i t f in is h ? DATE ..........

Yes . . .

No ..<.

1 ASK (b l)

2 ASK (c)&

(d)

1 iASK (c)&

2 ' (d)

SSKE n .8

IF DID NOT FINISH DURING LAST WEEK, RING — ------------>

116

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
British Genera! Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

TO EMPLOYEES ONLY IF SELF-EMPLOYED, DNA . . .

8. Does your em ployer pay you anyth in g

when you are o f f sick ?

Yes

No

DK

X

CODE

1

2

3

9. Do you ex p ect to r e c e iv e a p en sio n

from your em ployer when^ you r e tir e ?

Yes

No

DK

TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND SELF-EMPLOYED *1

10. Have you r e ta in e d any p en sio n r ig h ts

from a p rev io u s job which you are

e it h e r drawing now or w i l l be a b le

to draw in the fu tu re?

Yes

No

1

2

3

1

2

11. Have you been w ith your p resen t

em p lo y er/self-em p lo y ed (in your

main job )

RUNNING

PROMPT

fo r l e s s than 6 months? .............................

fo r 6 months but l e s s than 12 months?

fo r 12 months or more? ................................

1

2

3

(a) How many changes o f em ployer have

you made in th e l a s t 12 months? — -......■■■■ "■■■...................- ■

IF NO PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT IN LAST 12 MONTHS, ENTER "0”

(b) How lon g had you been a c t iv e ly lo o k in g

fo r work b efo r e you found your p re se n t

job?

Days ...................................................

Weeks .................................................

Months ............................................................................... (STATE CALENDAR, A WEEKLY ETC.)

(c ) How d id you f i r s t hear about your p resen t job -

was i t through

an employment exchange? .................................... ..

RUNNING a Pr iv a te employment agency? ...........................

PROMPT an a d v e r tis e “ en t7 .....................................................

BUT CODE a r e l a t i v e or frien d ? ............................................

QNE d ir e c t a p p lic a tio n to an em ployer? ............

ONLY or *n 8° me o t ^er way? (SPECIFY) ....................

1

2

3

A

5

6

CO TO

Q. 10

I NOW ASK

i Q. 10

I ASK ( a ) -

I (c)

GO TO

Q. 12

117

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
British General Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

TO THOSE WORKING LAST WEEK (CODED 1 AT Q.l)

HAND INFORMANT CARD A.

12. Which o f th e sta te m en ts on t h is

card comes n e a r e s t, on th e w h ole,

to what you th in k about your

p re se n t (main) job?

Very s a t i s f i e d ....................

F a ir ly s a t i s f i e d ............ ..

N eith er s a t i s f i e d nor

d i s s a t i s f i e d ......................

Rather d i s s a t i s f i e d ....

Very d i s s a t i s f i e d ............

C.ODK

1

2

3

4

5

(a) Is th ere any reason why you

are not co m p letely s a t i s f i e d

w ith your job?

(b) Why are you d i s s a t i s f i e d ?

13. Are you s e r io u s ly th in k in g o f changing Yes .

or le a v in g your job? No . .

IF YES

(a) (May I check) why i s th is ?

For reaso n s a lr ea d y g iv en a t 1 2 (a ) or (b)

For o th er reaso n s ...............................•.....................

(SPECIFY BELOW)

14. How long does it usually take

you to get from home to work? Hr s ...........................M ins.

Work a t home ....................

Ho u su al p la c e o f work

1

2

Y

X

X

Q

ASK Q. 13

|ASK (a )

| ASK (b)

ASK (a)

ASK Q .14

[

NOW GO TO

TRAVEL

PAGE 8

118

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TO THOSE LOOKING FOR WORK LAST WEEK (CODED 4 AT Q .l)

British General Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

CODE

15. When lo ok in g fo r work l a s t week

INDIVIDUAL PROMPT f

CODE ALL

THAT

APPLY

were you r e g is t e r e d w ith an employment exchange?’ ..........

were you r e g is te r e d w ith a p r iv a te employment agency?

d id you a d v e r tis e or re p ly to a d v e r tis e m e n ts ? '.................

did you make a d ir e c t approach to a p r o sp e c tiv e

em ployer? .............

were you a w a itin g the r e s u lt s o f a p p lic a tio n s ? ...............

or did you do som ething e l s e to fin d work? (SPECIFY)..

1

2

3

4

5

6

ASK Q .16

l ASK Q .l 7

TO THOSE REGISTERED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE (CODED 1 AT Q .15)

OR WAITING TO START A NEW JOB (CODED 3 AT Q .l)

16. Did you draw, or will you draw, any ye s ....

unemployment benefit for last week? n0 .....

IF YES

*

(a) Did t h is in c lu d e , or were you a ls o

p a id , any supplem entary allow an ce?

ALTERNATIVE WORDING WHERE APPLICABLE ►

W ill t h is in clu d e or w i l l you a ls o be

paid any supplem entary allow ance?

Yes

No

TO THOSE WAITING TO START A NEW JOB, LOOKING FOR WORK, OR WOULD HAVE

LOOKED FOR WORK BUT FOR TEMPORARY SICKNESS (CODED 3-5 AT Q .l)

17. When d id you l a s t work?

L ess than a week ago ................................

One week but l e s s than l month ....

One month but l e s s than 3 months . .

Three months but l e s s than 6 months

S ix months but l e s s than 1 year . . .

One year or more ago ................................

NEVER WORKED BEFORE ..........

1

2

t

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

18. Have you r e ta in e d any p en sion r ig h ts

from a p rev io u s job which you are

e it h e r drawing now or w i l l J>e a b le Yes ......... 1

to draw in th e fu tu re? No ................. .. 2

ASK (a)

ASK Q.l7

ASK Q . 17

ASK Q. 18

GO TO

TRAVEL

PAGE 8

19. Why d id you sto p work?

NOW GO TO

TRAVEL

PAGE 8

119

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ployed, so that these surveys indicate overall proportions

for registration and non-registration.

Results of the 1971 GHS indicate that between onefifth and one-quarter of all those who described themselves

as looking for work were not registered with the Department

of Employment. Roughly, 7.5 percent of men looking for

work were unregistered; for women, 53.7 percent were unregistered.

The results of the 1971 GHS indicate an average unemployment rate for Great Britain of 3.9 percent of the

civilian labor force. The rate for men was 3.9 percent and

for women, 3.8 percent. The Department of Employment

figures on registered unemployment for 1971 yield an overall figure of 3.1 percent-4.1 percent for men and 1.3 percent for women. (These rates from the registered unemployed series, normally published as a percent of the wage

and salary labor force, are based on the wage and salary

plus self-employed labor force in order to make meaningful comparisons with the GHS.)

The above figures indicate that the registered unemployed figures slightly overstated male unemployment

rates in 1971, but that female rates were substantially

understated. The overstatement of male unemployment is

surprising in view of the results of the 1961 and 1966

censuses. Also, the GHS itself indicates that 7.5 percent

of unemployed men seeking work were unregistered. There

are two reasons for the higher unemployment of men in the

registered series. First, male registrants who did some work

in the reference week of the GHS would be counted as employed rather than unemployed in the GHS. The 1966

sample census results indicate that about 4 percent of

registered unemployed men did some work in the census

week. Second, “occupational pensioners,” who are not

in fact seeking work, are required to stay on the register

until age 65 in order to maintain eligibility for a pension

without making national insurance contributions.24 Such

persons would probably declare themselves as retired in

the GHS. A special survey conducted in October 1973

found that 12 percent of the persons registered as unemployed that month regarded themselves as not really being

in the labor market. Apart from occupational pensioners,

those with little interest in working were largely women

and older, disadvantaged workers who had become resigned to their loi-i.e., “discouraged workers.”

Unfortunately, data reported in the GHS are not inflated to a universe level, and published information on

sampling characteristics is not complete enough to allow

calculation of sampling ratios to apply to the actual figures

reported. Therefore, BUS has made an estimate of aggregate

unemployment for 1971 by first determining the level of

employment compatible with GHS concepts and then deriv24Such persons were included in the registered unemployed statistics as a result of parliamentary decisions. In accordance with the

Social Security Act of 1973, the rules were changed in April 1975

so that occupational pensioners are no longer required to register

as unemployed.

ing unemployment by applying the GHS unemployment

rate of 3.9 percent (table B-16). Civilian employment compatible with GHS concepts was taken to be the 4-quarter

employment average from the establishment census plus an

estimate of self-employed persons and domestics who are

not covered by the establishment census, less an estimate of

multiple jobholders. (See section on labor force adjustments

for further explanation.) This employment figure includes

wage and salary workers and self-employed persons, but

excludes unpaid family workers. Its coverage is, therefore,

the same as the GHS. The 1971 civilian employment figure,

thus determined, is 23,106,000. This figure and the GHS

unemployment rate are compatible with a total unemployment level of 938,000.25

Figures for 15- to 19-year-olds were not separately

reported in the GHS. Instead, data for 15- to 17-year-olds

and 18- to 24-year-olds were shown. In order to determine

an adjustment factor for teenagers, an estimate was made,

based on 1971 census proportions, of the number of 18-

and 19-year-olds in the 18-24 age group.

Besides adding persons on temporary layoff (done in

table B-18), only one adjustment must be made in GHS unemployment data for comparability with U.S. concepts.

Persons enumerated as seeking work who have not taken

any recent actions to do so should be excluded. The 1971

GHS indicates that 22.3 percent of the number of persons

seeking work but not registered as such had not actually

taken steps to find work in the reference week. Allowing

for the possibility that some may have taken active steps

in the previous 4 weeks, this percentage was scaled down

to 15 percent for adjustment purposes. Thus, 15 percent

of the unregistered unemployed seeking work is subtracted

from aggregate unemployment under GHS definitions. This

amounts to 5,000 men and 18,000 women.

GHS unemployment, adjusted as described above,

was then related back to the registered unemployed series

to obtain adjustment factors (table B-16).

The following tabulation shows the 1971 adjustment

factors in relation to those derived from the 1961 and 1966

censuses:

1961 1966 1971

Adult m en .......................................... 22 38 - 13

Adult women ...................... 93 182 227

Teenage b o y s ..................................... 123 66 13

Teenage g ir ls ..................................... 152 101 89

2 5 The results of the 1971 population census can be compared with

the above estimate. The census reported 1,298.800 persons “out of

employment” during the entire week of the census. April and May

were relatively low unemployment months compared with the

annual average for 1971-representing about 95 percent of the an

nual average. (The average of the April and May counts is taken to

approximate the timing of the 1971 census which enumerated persons according to their status as of April 25. Registered unemployed

counts were taken on April 5 and May 10). Dividing the census “out

of employment” by 95 percent yields 1,367,000. Annual unemployment from the GHS, as estimated above, is 69 percent of this figure.

This confirms the results of the analysis of the 1961 and 1966

censuses, in that the “out of employment” category significantly

overstates unemployment by U.S. concepts.

1 2 0

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Shifts in the propensity to register between 1961 and

1966 have already been discussed. Between 1966 and 1971,

the adult female propensity to register continued its decline.

This finding is supported by the fact that, as reported unemployment rates rose from 1.4 to 3.4 percent and female

unemployment rates from 0.8 to 1.4 percent, those for

married women rose only slightly from 0.6 to 0.7 percent,

based on the registered unemployed series. Rather than

being a true reflection of labor market conditions, this

small increase in registered unemployment for married

women probably resulted from a further decline in the

propensity to register.26

While the adult female propensity to register declined between 1966 and 1971, the adult male propensity

to register rose sharply—to the point where there was “overregistration’' of males age 20 and over. Thus the tendency

of unemployed men not to register as unemployed was outweighed by the tendency of registered unemployed males

to do some work during the week of registration and for

pensioners, not actually seeking work, to register as unemployed.

The rise in the propensity of adult males to register is

undoubtedly related to the deterioration of economic conditions between 1966 and 1971. Reported unemployment

rates more than doubled between these 2 years, rising from

1.4 to 3A percent. There are reasons for supposing that,

in periods of exceptionally high unemployment, the propensity to register increases. The more serious the problem,

the more people are aware of the problem and of their

rights to unemployment compensation. Furthermore, persons who would normally search for jobs on their own during times when jobs are easy to find would increasingly turn

to the Employment Service for help in obtainin? employment.

A further incentive to register was the introduction of

earnings-related unemployment benefits in October 1966.

Previously, unemployment compensation consisted of a flat

benefit unrelated to prior earnings. Eamings-related benefits

amount to one-third of a person’s former earnings between

certain specified amounts. Also, increases in flat-rate benefits were large, amounting to a 20-percent increase in 1971

alone.

The propensity to register on the part of teenagers

continued to increase between 1966 and 1971. There was a

sharp increase for teenage boys and a slight increase for

teenage girls. Continued development and improvement of

the Youth Employment Service played a role in this trend.

Combining the census and survey analyses. Coefficients of

adjustment were derived from the 1961 and 1966 censuses

and the General Household Surveys to be applied to the

regularly published British statistics on the registered unemployed. Adjustment factors for 1962 through 1965 were

interpolated from the 1961 and 1966 results; factors for 2

2 6 For some explanations of this trend, see Guy Standing, “Hidden

W oiKlessffVew Society, October 14, 1971, pp. 716-19,

1959 and 1960 were assumed to be the same as for 1961.

For 1967-70, factors were interpolated from the 1966 and

1971 results; factors for 1972 through 1974 were derived

from the surveys conducted in those years. Aggregate unemployment levels were derived from these surveys by the

same method used for the 1971 survey—i.e., determination

of a universe-level employment and derivation of unemployment by applying the GHS unemployment rate for that

year. Since linking with earlier years was not required, it

was not necessary to calculate adjustment factors for different age and sex categories after 1971. The aggregate unemployment levels for 1972 through 1974 were adjusted to

exclude persons not actively seeking work. From 1972 onward, the proportion of persons who had not actively

sought work was not published. Unpublished tabulations

obtained from The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys indicate that a smaller proportion of persons were not

actively seeking work in 1972 through 1974, compared

with 1971. Therefore, 10 percent of the “not registered,

other” category was subtracted (compared with 15 percent

in 1971).

Persons on temporary layoff are not included in

either the census or the GHS unemployed. Since they

should be included for comparability with U.S. concepts,

the number of persons on temporary layoff has been estimated from figures published on the number of workers in

manufacturing who were laid off the entire week. These

figures wete inflated to include nonmanufacturing by using

the ratio of manufacturing workers to all workers temporarily laid off and receiving benefits (normally a ratio of 85 to

90 percent).

Table B-17 shows the annual adjustment factors for

1959-71, the registered unemployed, and the estimate of

unregistered unemployed derived by applying the adjustment factors. The unregistered unemployed are added to

the registered unemployed and persons on temporary layoff

in table B-18 to obtain total British unemployment adjusted

to U.S. concepts. For example, registered unemployment

of 752,000 in 1971 is adjusted upward to 930,000 for

comparability with U.S. concepts.

A small adjustment for a few years had to be made

in the data for adult students to regularize the date of the

unemployment count. The counts of adult student registrations were not always taken at the same time in the

month—e.g., sometimes they were taken in early January

and sometimes in late January. This had a large effect on

the data since school vacations were over by late January.

The adjustments, although significant in some months, were

very small on an annual basis.

For 1975 and 1976, in lieu of survey results, the proportion of unregistered to registered unemployed in 1972

was applied (19 percent). This was done because 1972, like

1975 and 1976, was a year of relatively high unemployment.

As results from General Household Surveys for 1975 and

later years are analyzed, the estimates of adjusted unemployment since 1974 will probably require some revision.

121

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-17. Great Britain: Calculation of the unregistered unemployed, 1959-71

Item 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971

Percent

Adjustment factors:1

Teenagers:

M a le ................................ 123 123 123 111 100 88 77 65 55 44 34 23 13

Fem ale............................. 152 : 152 152 142 131 121 110 101 99 96 94 91 89

Adults:

M a le ................................ 22 22 22 25 28 32 35 38 28 18 7 - 3 - 1 3

Fem ale............................. 93 93 93 111 129 146 164 182 191 200 209 218 227

Thousands

Registered unemployed2 . . 445 346 312 432 521 372 317 331 521 549 544 582 758

Teenagers............................. 39 28 25 55 72 48 43 42 67 60 67 76 114

M a le ................................ 24 17 14 33 43 29 26 26 44 41 46 53 78

Fem ale............................. 15 11 11 22 29 19 17 16 23 19 21 23 36

Adults ...................... ... 406 318 287 377 449 324 274 289 454 489 477 506 644

M a le ................................ 299 231 212 289 351 251 215 234 377 420 416 442 562

Fem ale............................. 107 87 75 88 98 74 59 55 77 70 61 64 83

Unregistered unemployed3 . 219 170 151 238 305 237 211 222 300 252 192 160 157

Teenagers............................. 53 38 34 68 81 49 39 33 47 36 36 33 42

M a le ................................ 30 21 17 37 43 26 20 17 24 18 16 12 10

Fem ale............................. 23 17 17 31 38 23 19 16 23 18 20 21 32

Adults ................................ 166 132 117 170 224 188 172 189 253 216 156 127 115

M a le ................................ 66 51 47 72 98 80 75 89 106 76 29 -1 3 -7 3

Fem ale............................. 100 81 70 98 126 108 97 100 147 140 127 140 188

*1961 factors derived from population census; 1966 factors

from "sample census;" 1971 factors from General Household

Survey. 1959 and 1960 factors assumed same as 1961; 1962-65

and 1967-70 factors interpolated.

2

Annual average data by sex divided into age groups according

to midyear proportions of the registered wholly unemployed.

Computed by applying adjustment factors to registered unemployed data.

Labor force

British civilian labor force estimates are obtained by

adding civilian wage and salary workers (employed and unemployed) and estimates of the self-employed and employers. Unpaid family workers, a small category, are excluded.

Estimates of the self-employed and employers are interpolated by British statistical authorities from results of population censuses. The number of unemployed wage and salary

workers is obtained from the registered unemployed figures

reported by the Department of Employment. The number

of employed wage and salary workers was based solely

upon quarterly counts of National Insurance cards until

June 1971 when an annual employment census was instituted. Quarterly estimates of employed wage and salary

workers are now derived from the annual census and

quarterly sample surveys of establishments. To provide a

link between the old and new systems, both the card count

and a census were taken in June 1971 and the card count

system was continued through 1972. Estimates on the

census basis were made for earlier years by the British statistical authorities.

British statistics on the civilian working population

(labor force) differ from U.S. concepts in three respects:

(1) The establishment census overcounts wage and

salary employment under U.S. concepts. Because it is an

establishment inquiry, a person who had two regular jobs

with different employers in the census or survey week

would be counted twice. Thus, it is a measure of the

number of jobs rather than the number of workers in Great

Britain. The U.S. labor force survey measures the number

of workers. In another respect, the establishment census

undercounts employment: Persons in private domestic

service are excluded. There were 90,000 such persons in the

1971 National Insurance card count.

(2) Unpaid family workers are also excluded from the

establishment census, which covers only wage and salary

workers. Such persons are included in the U.S. labor force

if they worked 15 or more hours during the survey week.

(3) The unregistered unemployed are not included in

the British labor force statistics. Unemployed persons do

not appear in the British count of the working population

unless they have registered as such. Persons on temporary

layoff are included in the British statistics on employment.

Method o f adjustment. The British statistics on the labor

force were adjusted to U.S. concepts based on information

from the population census and the General Household

Surveys.

1. Adjustment for overcount o f employment. According to the results of the 1971 GHS, 3.3 percent of the male

workers and 2.8 percent of the female workers were multiple

jobholders. About 57 percent of the multiple jobholders

held more than one wage or salary job (a male-female breakdown was not available on this point). It was assumed that

57 percent of the 3.3 percent of male workers were multiple jobholders in the establishment census. Thus, 1.9 percent of all men reported as working in the establishment

122

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
census were multiple jobholders. Similarly 1.6 percent

of the women held more than one wage or salary job. These

percentages were applied to the reported number of male

and female employees in the establishment census to arrive

at an estimate of the overcount due to multiple jobholding.

For 1971, using this method, there were 385,000 multiple

jobholders in the establishment census figures.2 7 Domestics,

who were not covered in the establishment census, should

be added. They numbered about 90,000 in 1971. Thus a

net overcount of 295,000 (385,000 - 90,000) was estimated for 1971.

In 1972, using the same method discussed above, it

was estimated that 2.2 percent of the men and 1.6 percent

of the women in the establishment census were multiple

jobholders. Data on multiple jobholding was not available

from the 1973 and 1974 surveys. Therefore, for years

after 3972, the 1972 relationships have been used. The

number of domestics was assumed to be 0.4 percent of

civilian employment each year, based on the 1971 census.

The proportion of multiple jobholders in the 1966

sample census was somewhat less than in 1971-2.5 percent

versus 3.1 percent for both sexes. The adjustment for multiple jobholders was scaled down to 1.5 percent for men

and 1.4 percent for women in 1966 and prorated through

1971.

2. Unpaid family workers. There are very few unpaid

family workers in Great Britain because British tax laws are

such that the majority of family workers are paid. Data on

the number of family workers are available from the population censuses, but there is no indication as to how many

are unpaid and how many work fewer than 15 hours during the week. It was decided that the number of unpaid

family workers is probably too small to warrant an adjustment to include them. This assumption can be tested when

results of the 1976 General Household Survey become

available, since this survey will enumerate wives who work

in their husband’s business without pay.

3. The number of unregistered unemployed, as determined above, was added to the reported labor force.

Unemployment rate

The published British unemployment rate is

computed by dividing the number of registered

unemployed (including school leavers but excluding adult

students) by the total wage and salary labor force (employed and unemployed). The unemployment rate adjusted to U.S. concepts is computed by dividing the sum of

the registered (including adult students) and estimated 2

2 7This figure may be somewhat overestimated because in the GHS a person may be coded as having more than one job when the different jobs are all with the same employer; such a person could be counted only once in the Census oi Employment. However, there is no information on the amount by which the 385,000 should be reduced.

unregistered unemployed and persons on temporary layoff

by the civilian labor force adjusted for overcount and registered unemployed, (See table B-18.)

Quarterly and monthly estimates

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates seasonally

adjusted unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. definitions

for Great Britain. The method used in making these adjustments is as follows:

Unemployment. To arrive at the number of unemployed,

adjusted to U.S. concepts. BI.S adds together the wholly

unemployed (which excludes school leavers and adult students), school leavers, persons temporarily laid off, the

unregistered unemployed, and adult students.

The number of wholly unemployed excluding school

leavers and adult students is the seasonally adjusted series

published by the Department of Employment. Since 1972,

the series has been adjusted using the additive version of

the X -ll Variant of the U.S, Bureau of the Census Method

II seasonal adjustment program. Prior to 1972, a multiplicative seasonal adjustment program devised by the Central

Statistical Office was used. School leavers and the temporarily laid off are seasonally adjusted by BLS using the multiplicative option of the X -ll. The number of unregistered

unemployed is calculated by multiplying the sum of the

wholly unemployed and school leavers, both of which are

seasonally adjusted, by annual factors, derived from the

General Household Survey.

The number of adult students added to the unemployed for adjustment to U.S. concepts is a constant based

on the annual average number of adult students registered

as unemployed. As noted above, an increasing number of

adult students in the period 1970-76 registered as unemployed during their holidays in order to collect supplementary benefits. The registration of these persons caused distortions in BLS’s seasonal adjustment of this series. Therefore, a constant number of adult students is added to the

quarterly and monthly estimates of the unemployed. In

1977, fewer adult students registered during the short

school holidays, because regulations were changed so that

they were no longer entitled to benefits.

Labor force. Monthly estimates of the labor force cannot

be made because employment statistics are published only

quarterly. Quarterly estimates of the labor force adjuster

to U.S. definitions are derived by adding reported employ

ment (employees in employment plus the self-employed),

seasonally adjusted by the Department of Employment, to

the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed adjusted

to U.S. concepts. Estimates of the number of persons

temporarily laid off the entire week and multiple jobholders are subtracted, The figure used for multiple jobholders is a constant derived from the latest available General Household Survey.

123

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-18. Great Britain: Adjustm ent o f labor force data to U.S. concepts, 1959-76

(N u m b ers in thousands)

Item 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

Reported civilian em p loym en t................................... ... ................ 22,785 23,177 23,487 23,631 23,698 24,036 24,260 24,332 24,021

Plus: Registered u nem p lo yed...................................................... 444 346 312 432 521 372 317 331 519

Reported civilian labor fo r c e ............................................................ 23,229 23,523 23,799 24,063 24,219 24,408 24,577 24,663 24,540

Less: Net overcount......................................................................... 219 225 230 232 233 228 232 232 241

Plus: Adult students1 ................................... .................................. - - - - ~ - - - 2

Plus: Unregistered unemployed2 ............................................ 219 170 151 238 305 237 2 11 222 300

Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................ 23,229 23,468 23,720 24,069 24,291 24,417 24,556 24,653 24,601

Rounded ............................................................................................ 23,230 23,470 23,720 24,070 24,290 24,420 24,560 24,650 24,600

Registered unemployed ................................................ ..................... 444 346 312 432 521 372 317 331 519

Plus: Adult students 1 ..................................................................... - - - - - - - 2

Plus: Temporarily laid off ^ ................................... ... 7 1 6 9 7 1 5 4 7

Plus: Unregistered unemployed2 ............................. 219 170 151 238 305 237 2 11 222 300

Adjusted unemployed ......................................................................... 670 517 469 679 833 610 533 557 828

R o u n d ed ...................................... ............................. 670 520 470 680 830 610 530 560 830

Unemployment rate (percent):

As published4 .................................................. ............................ 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.9 2.3 1.6 1.4 1.4 2.2

Adjusted to U.S. concepts......................................................... . 2.9 2.2 2.0 2.8 3.4 2.5 2.2 2.3 3.4

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Reported civilian employment . ...................................................... 23,916 23,924 23,811 23,402 23,570 24,088 24,169 24,004 23,830

Plus: Registered unemployed . ................ ... ............................. 546 540 577 752 835 588 585 936 1,305

Reported civilian labor fo r c e ............................................................ 24,462 24,464 24,388 24,154 24,405 24,676 24,754 24,940 25,135

Less: Net overcount ........................................... ' ............................ 261 260 279 295 337 336 337 5 333 * 5 330

Plus: Adult students1 ...................... ............................................ 3 4 5 6 9 9 11 35 44

Plus: Unregistered unemployed2 ............................................ 252 192 160 157 160 176 85 5 180 5 251

Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................ 24,456 24,400 24,274 24,022 24,237 24,525 24,513 524,822 s25,100

R o un ded...................... ..................................................................... 24,460 24,400 24,270 24,020 24,240 24,530 24,510 5 24,820 5 25,100

Registered unem ployed..................................................... ... 546 540 577 752 835 588 585 936 1,305

Plus: Adult students1 ............................................. 3 4 5 6 9 9 11 35 44

Plus: Temporarily laid off 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 5 11 10 6 9 16 6

Plus: Unregistered unemployed2 ................... .......................... 252 192 160 157 160 176 85 5 180 5 251

Adjusted unemployed ................................ ..................................... ... 803 741 747 926 1,014 779 690 5 1,166 5 1,606

Rounded ...... ................ . ................... . . . . . . . . . 800 740 750 930 1,010 780 690 5 1,1 70 5 1,610

Unempk yment rate (percent):

As published4 .................................................................................. 2.4 2.4 2.5 3.4 3.7 2.6 2.6 4.1 5.6

Adjusted to U.S. concepts............................................................ 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.9 4.2 3.2 2.8 s4.7 5 6.4

1 A d u lt students registered as un em ployed adjusted slightly to

regularize date of coun t.

7 For 1959 71 see table B-17 for method of estimation. For 1972

through 1974, unemployment from household surveys inflated to

universe levels and adjusted to U.S. concepts. Surveys for 1975 onwards have not been published; unregistered unemployed figures for

1 9 7 5 and 1976 are estimated as described in text.

Unemployment rate. Quarterly unemployment rates are

estimated by dividing the 3-month seasonally adjusted average of unemployment (adjusted to U.S. definitions) by

the seasonally adjusted (adjusted to U.S. concepts) labor

force. Since labor force data are only available quarterly,

the f or • ee is held constant for each of the 3 months

which make up that quarter. Additionally, the latest

available labor force figure is used until the next quarterly

figure is published. At that time, the unemployment rates

me recalculated. The labor force figures generally lag by

T months.

2 M anufacturing w orkers laid off the entire w eek in flated to include nonmanufacturing based on data on registrations for temporary layoff benefits.

4 Registered unemployed as a percent of the civilian wage and

salary labor force.

5 Preliminary estimate.

Italy

Prior to 1963, the International Labour Office (ILO)

published the number of registered unemployed persons as

representative Italian unemployment figures. The unemployment rate was computed by dividing the number of registered unemployed by the economically active population

(excluding persons seeking first employment) reported in

the 1951 population census. Beginning in 1963, however,

the ILO began publishing the results of a quarterly sample

survey as the more representative unemployment figures.

124

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Italian Survey Questionnaire Used Prior to 1977

La settimana di riferimento e quella che comprende il giorno di riferimento

(Nelia risposta ai quesiti delle varie colonne attenersi, ove richiesto, alle sigle o cifre convenzionali riportate in cake aiia corrisponcente colonna)

NOTIZ'IE PER TUTTE LE PERSONE DELLA FAMIGLIA

DA COMPILARE SOLAMENTE PER LE PERSGNE IN ETA D! 14 ANN I O PIU

C j compilare: SEMPRE per g!i O C ‘-d R O ; pc' le persona '

(P O - C - P ecc.) SOLO se hanno svc!lo a th v iti la vo ra tivt

Ore di lavoro effettuate

nelia settimana di riferimento

Se le ore sono

inferior! a 33

indicare:

Attivsti economica prevaiente dell’uniti locale c

cit3ta la professione, pos’zione nelia professions

arte o mestiere del iavoratore

Ramo di aniviU j

economtta pre- j

valente dell'uni- 1

ta locale

I

professione

PROFESSIONE

(viticultore, meccaoico, e'ettnosta

riparatore, parroco, capitano, infermiere diplomaro, usciere, bidel-

!o, fattorino, ecc.)

occupaZ’cne

R3 e PO

col 10

Mesi

N.

ADDE1TI 

ALLA ACRIC O l TURA

E ALLE 

COSTRUz i o n :

'col.14=1 o 4)

•i S |

z 5 e

Riservato

ISTAT

10

RELAZiONE COL CAPO

FAMIGLIA:

Capo famiglia . . 1

Cor.ii.ge .... 2

.... 3

Altri parent!. . . 4

Domestici e.simil: . 5

A ltri...........................i

Col. 3

SESSO:

Maschi . ,

Femmine

Per I PRESENTI

indicare sempre:

Col. 5 (motivo) 0

Col. 6 (durata) 00

CoTTT (lorahta) 00

Per gii ASSENTI

dal Comune per

lu ita la aettim ana di rife rim e n -

to indicate:

Col. 5 (motivo):

Emigrati all’este-di

Indicare gli mnni cam -

piuti secondo la «Tabella deH'et4»,

Domidliati

fatto in altro

Comune

mente assenti

Equipaggi in navigazione . .

Col, 6 (durata):

La durata dell’assenza in meai

Col. 7 (locality):

Lo stato esiero e

la provir.cia dove

si trova I’assente

(cfr. codice sul

retro).

CoL_8

STATO

CIVILE:

Celibe

nubile . 1

Coniugato 2

Vedovo . 3

Separato , 4

Col. 9

ISTRUZION E:

Analfabeta 1

Nessun titolc . 2

Lie. elementare . 3

Lie. scuola __

media in- *

feriore . 4

Diploma

scuola media superiore . . S

Laurea . . 6

Col. 10

C ON D IZION E:

Profevsionale :

Occupato . . . OC-1

Ricerca nuova

occupazione RO-2

Mon professionale:

In cerca di 1*

occupazione . PO-3

Servizio leva SL-4

Casalinga . . . C-5

Studente . , . S-6

Inabi'e .... IN -7

Pensionato . . P-4J

Altra condizione(benestanti. anziani, detenuti, vagam .li).......... A-9

Col. 12

CAUSA a t t iv it A

RIDOTTA

Malattia o maternity 1

Confhtto ci lavoro . . . 2

Ferie o festivity.......... 3

Gattivo tempo .... 4

Inizio o cessaz. dell'attivita nelia settimana 5

Contralto di lavoro o

rapporto d’ impiego 6

Sottoccupazione:

- Causa stagionale . . . 7

- Altra causa............... 8

Non convenienza o interesse a maggior lavoro ....................’. . . 9

Aitre cause (spectficare nelle annotazioni) 0

Col. 13

CASSA SNTEGRAZION & GUADAGNI

Ne usufruisce............ . I

Non ne usufruisce . . . 0

(cfr. NORME sul retro)

Coi. 14 - r a m o d i a t t iv it A e c o n o m ic a

Agricoitura, foreste, caccia e pesca , . . . .

Industrie estrattive

» m anifatturiere........................... ..... . .

» costruzioni ..........

Produzione e disju ibuzione di energia elettrica e c

d istrib u tio n s a c q u a ......................................................

C o m m c c io ........................................... ..... . . .

Trasporti e com unicazioni.....................................

Credito e assicurazione .........

Servizi e attivita sociali varie

Pubbtica Amministrazione ........

Col. 17

AG-1

ES-2

M A-3

C O -4

EL-S

C M 4

TR-7

CR-8

SE-9

PA-0

Col. 15 - POSIZIONE NELLA PROFESSIONE

imprenditore .....

L.ibero professicnista . .

Lavoratore in proprio . ,

Dirigente ............................................................

Impiegato ...........................................................

Qperaio, subalterno e assimilate; categoric ii

medie deli'industrha ........

DURATA RICERCA 

OCCUPAZ.

aMa ricerca

della

occupazione

IS e 19

,nno riferi'

dell'attuale

nievazione

tuate unicamente nelI' agricoitura

Riservato

ISTAT

Col. 16 - PROFESSIONE

Indicare, vsando term'ni specificf, la professione, art

stiers esercitata; per i d>socc.upati, la professione, ar

suere esercitata neU'u.tima occupazione posseduta.

ANNOTAZIONI

DELL'INTERVISTATORE (da compilare SEMPRE se col. 12 - 0) DELL'UFFICIALE d i a n a g r a f e

Per i component! che alia coi. 6 figurano assenti

da oltre 24 mesi, mdicare se sono ancora iscritti

in anagrafe, barrando il rettangoio che fa a! caso

Componente I

(n. d'ordine col. 1) j i5cnrto Non iscritto

I r n !— l

.. I ......j F 5 I 1

11 n i i

I

Data di consegna ali'Ufficio del Comune..,..................... 196

L’lMTERVISTATORE

(Cognome e norr.e leggibi’i)

Visto: per !a revisione

IL CAPO DELL’UFFICIO

ADDETTO ALLA R1LEVA2IONE

A TTE N ZlO N Es Le fa m ig lie devono e s s e re in te rv is ia te , a i lo ro d o m lclU o , non a p p en a d o c o rs a la

s e ttim a n a d i rife rim e n to m l m o d e lll devono e s s e re r e s tltu itl a ll9IS T A T e n tro e non

o ltro l l 12* g io rn o s u o o e s s N o a q u ella d i rife rim e n to *

125

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Italian Survey Questionnaire Used from 1977 Onward

La settimana di riferimento e quelfa che comprende il giofno di riferimento

DA COMPILARE SOLAMEN'E PER LE PERSONE IN ETA' DI 14 ANNI O PiU' Per gl i scoNuQualunque 

sia ia condiDA COMPILARE: Sempra per gli OCCUPATI e le PERSONE IN CERCA DI NUOVA 

OCCUPAZIONE; per tu tti gli a ltri solo sa hanno effettuato 

almeno 1 ora di lavoro nella settimana di riferim ento.

RICERCA D E LL'O C C U P A Z IO N E denti in ety 

da 10 a 15

Contribuisce 

in qua!- 

che modo

col proprio lavoro al 

redd i to

ro

rata, ha effettuato ore

di layoro nei- ATTIVITA’ LAVORATiVA PRINCiPALE (O UNICA)

O ltre 

I'a ttivity 

p rin cipale 

svolge 

a ltri 

iaveri 

anche 

in un 

diverso

Solo per chi 1ha i codici 1 l alia colonna 20

Solo per 

chi ha i 

codici 5 o 

6 alia 

colonna

p iu ti. d'er

d iState Istro- Condi

di riterim ento? PROFESSIONE

Branca di

Njm erc ore effettivanr-ente lavorate nella 

settimana di rlfe rimento nella tola attivity principale

Cerca Da quanti 

mesi fe

alia ricer­ Quando Oltre a stune

dei |

civile zione zione Se SI, in d icare ii nu- Posiattivity

econoLuogo

dove Come

attiva- ca di un 

iavoro?

(o p e r

quanto

cnm niiilo rerrare iax/nrn?

ha compiuta

20 dlare sta imparando praticamente un 

mestiere in

fami ha­ commero di ore 

lavorate in 

tutts le 

tivita da cui 

le persona o 

ia fam iglia 

trae un guadagno

Denominaziane Codice

zione

nella

orofesmica

prevalent©

della

unity

locale

Se

r.ono

svolge

I'a ttiv iti

svolge

ia sua 

a ttivity

mente

un lavoro? (barrare i codici :orrisponI'uitim a 

azione 

concreta 

per cer

lavoro?

Perch6 non

re?

(Rispondere

posione Numero

ore

inferior!

a 40 

indicare 

ia causa

rativa periodo

delI'anno?

tempo e 

stato alia 

ricerca di 

un lavoro?)

denti a tutte le aziotn 

comp lute)

cerca atti

vamente 

un lavoro?

orficina, bottega, negozio, ufficio?

SI oN O )

rt

3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 v 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8

S 9 10 11 ’ 12 13 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Col. S - 5?AT©

CIVILE

Cehbe, nubile ...... 1

Coniugato . 2 

Vedovo .. . 3 

Separate, divondato, gi& 

coniugato . 4

Cel 9 - ISTRUZIONE

Ana if abets . I 

Nesiun titolo .............. 2

Licenza elementare . . . 3 

Lieenza scunmedia inferior© . . . 4 

Diploma 

seucla r e ­

did super lore ............5

Laurec .. 6

Cel. 10 - CONDIZIONE

Occupato ............ 1

Ricerca nuova oceupazicoe ....... 2

In cerca di I* OCrupazione . . . . 3

Servizio di leva 4

CasaKnga ............ 5

Studente .............. 6

Inabile ai lavoro . 7

Persona rb ira ta 

da! lavoro .......... S

A itre conaiziona 

{ Penesiante. anziano, detenuto, 

vagabond© e sim d i) .......................9

!

Co! 1? - ORE D!

LAVORO

Indicare is numero 

di ore su due d ire 

aniepenendo Un° Ie ' 

ro se occoire.

Col 12 PROFESSION

Indicare, usando term ini specifiei, la professione esercitat3, per 

!e persone in cerca di nuova occupazione Sa professione arte o 

mestiere esercitati r>el I'ultim a occupazione posseduts. St- ia professione h fra queiie sottoelencate, indicare il codice che fa a! 

caso:

Insegnante, professors, bidello, persona!e scolastico .... 1

M ilitare di carriers fmo ad appuntato ............................ 2

M ilitare di carriers da vice brigadiere in su ..................... 3

Ferroviere, tranviere, altri dipendenti dei pubblic* trasporti 4

Cantoniore stradale e assimilati .......... ................................ 5

Portalettere e a ltri dipendenti degli uffici delle PP.TT 6

Netturbino .............................................................................. ■ 7

Membro di equipaggio mercantile in nevigazione .............. 8

Co!. 13 - POSIZIONE NELLA PROFESSIONE

Col. IS - CAUSA RIDOTTA

ATTIViTA'

01

Imprend itore .................... 1

Libero professionista .... 2

Lavoratore in proprio ... 3

Coadiuvante . ..................... 4

Dirigente .............................. 5

Col. 14 ■ BRANCA DI ATTIVITA' ECONOMICA

Agricoltura, foreste, caccia e pesos ................

Energia e acqua

Impiegato o intermed o . 

Operaio, subaltern© a assim ilsti ..........................

Apprer.dist3 ......................

Lavoratore a domici!i> 

conto di imprese

per

Estrazione e trasformazione di minerals non energeti

e prodotti derivati. industria chimica ..........................

Industrie di trasformazicr.c dei m etalii e meccanica

precisione ............................................................................

Officine e botteghe di riparazione di beni di consumo (auto

calzature, elettrodomestici, orologi, ecc.) ............

Aitre Industrie m an'fatturiere .........................................

Costruzioni e installazione di impianti ......................

Commercio, siberghi e pubbiici esercizi ............ ....

Trasporti e comunirazioni .............................................

Credit© e assicurazione, servizi prestati alle imprese, no

leggio senza personale, iocazione ..............................

Pubbiica amministrazione, forze armate, assistenza e

videnza sociaie .................................................................

A ltri servizi, a ttiv iti sociali varie, istituzioni religiose 

eriti stranieri e organizzazioni internazionali ..........

Malattia o maternity

C onflitto di lavoro .............. 02

Ferie, o festivity .................. 03

Cattivo tempo ...................... 04

Inizio o cessazione d e li’attivit& net la settimana .......... 05

Contralto di lavoro o rapporto d'im piego ...................... 06

Causa stagionale .................. 07

Ridotta attivita dell'aziend? 08

Non ha trovato occasion! di

maggior lavoro ................ 09

Non convenienza o interesse a maggior lavoro ------ 10

Altra causa .............................. 00

Col. 17 - LUOGO

In casa o nelie immediate

vicinanze ............................

Fuori casa, ma neiio stesso

Comune ......................

In sitro Comune ..........

Luogo variabile ( rapp resen 

tanti, personale viaggian 

te. ecc.) ............

Co! 1* - MOOO

In modo regoiare e continue 1 

In modo occasional© e saltuario ........................... 2

Solo stagionale ...................... 3

Col. 19 - ATTIVITA' SECONDARY

SI ............................... . . .. 1

NO ......................................... 2

Col. 20 - RICERCA DI

LAVORO

( N .B . - A l q u e s ilo v a

d a t a r is p o s ta p e r t u t t i

i c o m p o n e n t i f a m i l i a r i

d i a l m e n o 14 a n n i d i

e ta , q u a lu n q u e s ia la

c o n d in o n e d i c o l. 1 0 ) .

Si, cerca un lavoro 

alle dipendenze .... 1

Iniziera tra breve un 

lavoro alle dipendenze fpcste gia trovama non ancora

occupato) ............. 2

Iniziery un lavoro 

in proprio in epoca 

successive ail'indagine avendo gi& predisposto i mezzi per

esercitarlo ................ 3

Intende esercitare un 

lavoro in proprio, 

non avendo predisposto mezzi per esercitarlo .......................... 4

NO, ma potrebbe tavorare a particolari

condizioni ................ 5

NO, non ha possibility o interesse a 

lavorare 6

NO, ha g ii un iavoe non ne cerca

un altro . ................ 7

Cel. 21 - DURATA

DELLA RICERCA

N.ro dei mesi di ricerca, 

due cifre, anteponendo uno zero se occorre 

(se la ricerca non 4 ancora iniziata indicare 00)

Co!. 22 - AZ3DNS CONCRETE D! Pi

CERCA

Iscrizione presso ufficio pubblico

di collocamento .............................. 1

iscrizione presso agenzie private 

di collocamento .....................

Visita personale a possibili datori 

di lavoro ........ ......................

Segnalazione a datori di lavoro 

da parte di amici s conoscenti 

Invio a datori d! lavoro di deman 

de scritte di assunzione c parte

cipazione a concorsi ..............

Inserzione sui g-ernaii per richie

ste di lavoro ..........................

Risposta ad inserzioni di datori di 

lavoro pubblicate sui giornali .... 

Azioni concrete di ricerca non ancora iniziate ..............................

Col. 23 - EPOCA DELL'ULTIMA AZIONE COMF1 UT A

Negli u ltim i 3u s:orni .................. 1

Da 1 a 6 mes- fa .......................... 2

Oltre 6 mesi fa ............................ 3

Non ancora compiuta .................. 4

Col. 24 - CAUSA DELLA NON RICERCA

( N .B . - U r il e v a io r e n o n le g g a le

c a u s e e le n c a t e , m a a s c o lti le m o d -

v a i i o n i d e l la p e r s o n a e in d ic h i i i

c o d ic e c h e f a a l c a s o . Se la p e rs o ­

n a in d ic a p iii d i u n m o tiv o , f a r e

r i f e r i m e n t o a l m o t iv o p r e v a l e n t e ) .

M otivi di fam iglia (assistenza a 

fig li e a ltri parent i, a ltri obbli

ghi fam ihari, ecc.) ................

M otivi di studio ......................

R itiro dal lavoro per ety ....

M otivi di salute, invalidity o altro 

impedimenta fisico (compresa

1'ety avanzata) ............................... 4

Assenza di bisogne .......................... 5

Vana ricerca di un lavoro in passeta ............................................... 6

Convinzione di non disporre di $ufficier.te preparazione professional 

e di non poter trovare un lavoro 

adatto alle proprie possibility .. 7

E' considerate troppo giovane o 

troppo vecchio dai datori di lavoro 8

Servizio di leva .............................. 9

Non sa ............................................. 0

Col. 25 - STUDIO E LAVORO

Col. 24 . CONTR1BUTO REDO I TO FAMILIARE

Rispondere per tu tti i componenti 

della fam iglia con almeno 10 anni 

d'ety.

ATTEN2IONE. Le famiglia dovono ossert in»*rvi»t«i«, ai loro domicil*©, non appona deeorsa la settimana di riferimento. I model!! devono essere restituiti aii'ISTAT ehtro a non oltre il 12* giorne successive a quelle di riferimento.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Columns 8-19, To be completed only for persons 14 years of age and over:

Column 10. Status:

Professional

Employed

Seeking a new job

Nonprofessional

In search of first job

Military conscript

Housewife

Student

Unable to work

Retired

Other (financially independent, old age, prisoner, vagabond, etc.)

Columns 11-16. To be completed for all employed persons and persons seeking a new job and for persons whose status is nonprofessional if they worked during the reference week:

Column 11. Hours worked during the reference week

Columns 12-13. If less than 40 hours, indicate:

Column 12. Reason:

Sickness or maternity

Labor dispute

Vacation or holiday

Bad weather

Start or termination of job during the reference week

Work contract or terms of employment

Underemployed

—seasonal reasons

-other reasons

Not convenient or interested in working longer hours

Other (specify)

Column 13. Are you taking advantage of the Wage Supplement Fund?

Column 14. Industry

Column 15. Class of worker (self-employed, wage or salary worker, unpaid family worker)

Column 16, Occupation

Column 17. Duration of seeking employment (to be completed for persons whose status is seeking a

new job or in search of first job)

Italy: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status:

Questionnaire used prior to 1977

127

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Columns 8-24. To be completed only for persons 14 years of age and over:

Column 10. Status:

1. Employed

2. Seeking a new job

3. In search of first job

4. Military conscript

5. Housewife

6. Student

7. Unable to work

8. Retired

9. Other (financially independent, old age, etc.)

Column 11. Whatever the status declared, did you do any work at all in the reference week? If yes,

indicate the number of hours worked in all the activities in which the individual or the family made

earnings or profits.

Columns 12-19. To be completed for all employed persons and persons seeking a new job. For all other

persons, complete only if 1 hour or more of work has been done in the reference week.

Column 12. Profession

Column 13. Position in the profession

Column 14. Branch of economic activity

Column 15. Hours worked during the reference week

Column 16. If less than 40 hours, indicate the reason:

1. Sickness or maternity

2. Labor dispute

3. Vacation or holiday

4. Bad weather

5. Start or termination of job during reference week

6. Work contract or terms of employment

7. Seasonal cause

8. Reduced business activity

9. Have not found opportunity for more work

10. Not convenient or interested in working longer hours

00. Other

Column 17. Place of work

Column 18. Regularity of activity (regular, seasonal, occasional, etc.)

Italy: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status:

Questionnaire used from 1977 onward

128

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Column 19. Aside from your principal activity, do you do other work at another time of the year?

Column 20. To be completed by all persons age 14 or over, whatever the status reported in column 10.

Are you actively seeking work?

1. Yes, seeking a wage or salary job

2. Will soon begin a wage or salary job

3. Will begin, subsequent to reference week, self-employment and already have the necessary

means

4. Intend to become self-employed, but do not yet have the necessary means to do so

5. No, would seek work only under certain conditions

6. No, do not have the possibility or the interest in seeking work

7. No, have a job and not seeking another

Columns 21 to 23. To be completed by all who responded according to number 1 or number 2 in column 20,

Column 21. How long have you been looking for work? (If the search has not begun, enter zero.)

Column 22. What definite actions have you taken to find work?

1. Registered at public employment office

2. Registered at private employment agency

3. Visited employers

4. Brought to attention of an employer by friends or acquaintances

5. Sent a resume to an employer or took a competitive exam

6. Placed an ad in a newspaper

7. Responded to an ad in a newspaper

8. Have not yet taken active steps to find work

Column 23. When did you last take definite action to find work?

1. In the last 30 days

2. One to six months ago

3. Over 6 months ago

4. Have not begun job search

Column 24. To be completed by those who responded according to number 5 or 6 in column 20.

Column 24. Why are you not actively seeking work? (The interviewer does not read the causes listed,

but records response of the person interviewed.)

1. Family reasons

2. Studies

3. Retired

4. Health, invalidity, or other physical impediment

5. Absence of need

6. Searched in vain in the past

7. Insufficient professional preparation

8. Too young or too old

9. Military duty

10. Don’t know

Italy: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status:

Questionnaire used from 1977 onward—Continued

129

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The results of the sample survey form the basis of the adjustment to U.S. concepts.

A major revision in survey methods was made in

January 1977. The definition of unemployment remained

essentially the same, but more probing questions were incorporated in the survey questionnaire. The more probing style of questioning resulted in significant increases in

the number of persons enumerated as employed and unemployed. In addition, questions are now asked on workseeking activities, and it is possible to determine the number of persons who have not taken active steps to find work

in the past 30 days. The results indicate that there are a

large number of such persons, who would probably be classified as “discouraged workers” rather than as unemployed

under U.S. concepts. However, many may be registered unemployed persons who do not consider the listing of one’s

name on the unemployment register to be an active job

search step in the last 30 days.

At the time this section was prepared, BLS had the

summary results of the January and April 1977 surveys

and the new survey definitions and questionnaire. BLS

may revise its adjusted estimates of Italian labor force data

after the complete results of the new surveys are obtained

and certain remaining points have been clarified.

Unemployment

Registered unemployed. Italy tabulates the number of jobseekers 15 years of age and over registered at the local employment offices of the Ministry of Labor on the last day

of each month. They are divided into five classes: (1) Unemployed formerly employed persons seeking work; (2)

youths under age 21 and others seeking their first job and

jobseekers released from military service; (3) housewives

seeking work for the first time; (4) pensioners seeking employment; and (5) employed persons seeking other jobs.

Usually classes (1) and (2), representing over 90 percent

of the total in recent years, are used as a measure of unemployment.

Until the recent modifications in the Italian labor

force survey, the registrations series was commonly acknowledged to overstate the level of unemployment because of failure of registrants to cancel their registrations promptly after obtaining jobs. The registration

figures formerly were considerably higher than the unemployment data derived from the labor force survey.

For example, in 1975 an average of 1,202,000 persons28

were registered as unemployed; according to the labor force

survey, 654,000 were unemployed. However, in January

1977, when more probing questions were incorporated in

the survey, the survey enumerated 1,459,000 unemployed

persons, while the registrations series counted 1314,000.

Labor force surveys. Beginning with January 1959, the

Italian Central Institute of Statistics (1STAT) has conducted quarterly labor force surveys, usually in January,

2 8Classes 1 and 2 of registered unemployed persons.

April, July, and October and with reference to the cal

endar week which includes the 20th of the month. Earlier

surveys were conducted in September 1952, May 1954,

May 1955, April 1956, May and November 1957, and

October 1958. The surveys currently cover about 83,000

households distributed among some 1,400 communities

representative of the whole country. They are carried out

by personal interview.

Until 1972 the surveys covered the noninstitutional

resident population, including persons temporarily working

abroad and accompanying family members. Separate results were also published for the present-in-area population,

which excludes persons temporarily abroad. Beginning in

1972, only the present-in-area population has been surveyed. Summary survey results are published by 1ST AT in

the Bollettino Mensile di Statistica and the Notiziario

1ST A T (foglio 34). More detailed results are published annually in the Annuario di Statistiche de Lavoro.

Modifications in the survey were made in January

1964 and January 1977. Beginning in January 1964, unemployed persons were defined as all those 14 years of age

and over who did not work at all in the survey week and

were actively seeking work. Prior to 1964, unemployed

persons were defined as all those 14 years of age and over

who actively sought work during the survey week and (a)

did not work at all or (b) stated they did not have jobs

(even though they may have done some work in the survey

week).

In the surveys prior to January 1977, one question

determined a person’s labor force status. This question

inquired as to the respondent’s “condition” during the

reference week. The possible answers on the survey form

were as follows:

Professional:

Em ployed

Seeking a new job

Nonprofessional: Seeking first job Military conscript Housewife Student Unable to work (handicapped)

Pensioner Other (independent means, aged, etc.)

According to the definitions appearing on the survey

form, persons enumerated as “seeking a new job” were

those who had lost their job, were looking for another job,

and were in a condition to accept a job if it was offered.

This group of persons is referred to as the unemployed-^/soccupati—in the survey results. Persons enumerated as

“seeking first job” were those who had never been employed

and were actively seeking work. The sum of the unemployed

and the first-time jobseekers is referred to as those in search

of work—in cerca di occupazione—m the survey results.

According to 1ST AT, persons on layoff who were

waiting to return to their jobs would most likely respond

that they were employed. Persons not looking for work in

130

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the survey week because of temporary illness and persons

waiting to start a new job would most likely be classified

as not in the labor force since they were not actively seeking work. However, no specific questions were asked on any

of these categories.

Although the survey definitions stated that persons

“seeking a new job” or “seeking first job” should be actively seeking work, there was no test or time period

specified for workseeking activities. All persons enumerated as seeking work were asked the duration of their job

search, and all persons responded according to some duration. Thus, there was no category of persons who had not

begun looking for work. However, persons who had taken

active steps to look for work more than 1 month ago,

but had not done anything to find work during the month

including the reference week, were counted as unemployed.

Aiso, current availability for work was noted in the definition of persons “seeking a new job” but not in the definition of persons “seeking first job.” There was no test of

current availability in the survey questionnaire.

Special surveys of persons “not in the labor force”

conducted in April 1973 and April 1975 indicated that

many people were looking for work but not stating that

they were unemployed or seeking a first job in the regular

Italian surveys.29 These surveys, unlike the regular Italian

survey described above, contained more probing questions.

They attempted to elicit information on the Italian population’s attitude toward the labor market and reasons for

nonparticipation in the labor force. Persons age 14 through

70 were interviewed.

The April 1973 and 1975 surveys were coordinated

with the regular April labor force surveys. They classified

the population in Italy into four categories according to

degree of economic activity (table B-19): (1) Persons age 14

or over who are employed, unemployed, or looking for

their first job. This represents the labor force in its most

strict sense, and comprises those persons who respond that

they are economically active in the above senses (employed,

unemployed, etc.) when asked their current “condition.”

In April 1973, there were 19 million such persons. (2) Persons who say they are looking for a job who did not term

themselves as unemployed or seeking their first job in the

question concerning current “condition.” There were

660,000 such persons in April 1973. (3) Persons who say

they are not looking for work but who would accept it

under certain conditions. In April 1973, there were 1.1

million persons in this category. (4) Persons who, although

they are of working age (14-70), say that they are not

working, are not looking for work, and are not disposed

to accept work. In April 1973, there were 17.5 million persons in this category.

29 A special survey of persons “not in the labor force” was also

conducted in February 1971. However, it is of limited usefulness because it did not contain questions on workseeking activities. Also, it

was not conducted in conjunction with the regular quarterly survey.

In January 1977, more probing questions were incorporated into the regular Italian labor force survey

questionnaire and the definition of unemployment was

made more precise. In addition to asking about a person’s

condition during the smvey week, specific questions concerning workseeking activities are now asked. The current

definition of unemployment—person in cerca di occupazione—refers to all persons looking for work, including: (1)

Those previously employed, namely persons age 14 and

over who have lost previously held paid employment, have

not performed any work during the reference week, and

stated (a) that they were seeking paid employment and were

able to accept it if offered to them; or (b) that they would

begin, subsequent to the survey period, paid employment

and had already found such employment; or (c) that they

would become, subsequent to the survey period, self-employed and already had the necessary means.30 (2) Those

seeking first job, namely, persons age 14 and over who had

never worked, or have been self-employed, or who have

voluntarily discontinued working for a period of time not

less than 1 year and fall within one of the three categories

(“a,” “b,” or “c”) noted under the previously employed

above. (3) Those persons in occupations not classified as

employment, namely, persons age 14 and over who stated

initially that they were housewives, students, ex-workers,

etc., but in answer to a second question in the course of

the interview affirmed that they were looking for employment. Included in this group are the persons who described

themselves as previously employed or seeking their first

job (1 and 2 above) and intended to become self-employed

but did not yet have the necessary means to do so.

The questions asked in the Italian survey concerning

workseeking activities are as follows: (1) Are you actively

seeking work? (2) How long have you been looking for

work? (3) What definite actions have you taken to find

work? and (4) When did you last take definite action to

find work? Only an affirmative answer to the first question

or an answer expressing intent to begin a new job or selfemployment at a later date is required for enumeration of

a person as unemployed. If the later questions elicit that

the person has not actually begun his job search or has not

taken any recent steps to find work, he is still classified as

unemployed.

Question (4) noted above is unique to the Italian

survey as a test of workseeking activity. For example, the

U.S. survey asks “What have you been doing to look for

work in the past 4 weeks?” The difference here is that the

U.S. question specifically mentions a time period-4

weeks- while the Italian question asks when the person last

actively sought work. One of the answers to the Italian

question on the survey form is “in the last 30 days.”

3 0 In past surveys, persons who were seeking work who have been

self-employed were included in the “previously employed” category. They are now included in the “seeking first job” category.

Also, groups “b” and “c” were not identified in previous interviews.

Digitized for FRASER 

131

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-19. Italy: Selected results from special labor force surveys, April 1973 and April 1975

(Thousands)

Item

April 1973 April 1975

Total Men Women Total Men Women

Labor force ............................................. 18,999 13,804 5,195 19,436 13,984 5,452

Employed ......................................... 18,264 13,357 4,907 18,769 13,585 5,184

Seeking another job ....... ( U ( U ( U 1,055 783 272

Unemployed or seeking first job . . 735 447 288 667 399 268

Not in the labor force (ages 14-70) . . 19,265 4,889 14,376 19,710 5,132 14,578

Looked for work but did not

declare themselves as unemployed in a previous question . . 658 153 505 496 140 356

Did not look for work, but would

accept work under certain

conditions...................................... 1,12 1 190 931 908 158 750

Neither seeking work nor

interested in work under

certain co n d itio n s ...................... 17,486 4,546 12,940 18,306 4,834 13,472

1 Not available. SOURCE: Istituto Centrale de Statistica, Annuario di Statistiche del Lavoro, 1975 (for April 1973 survey}, pp. 109-16; and

1976 (for April 1975 survey), pp. 103-15.

BLS is not certain that all persons who do not respond “in the last 30 days55 should be excluded from the

Italian unemployment figures for comparability with U.S.

concepts, which require active jobseeking within the past

4 weeks. In the Italian survey, there could be a number

of persons registered as unemployed who do not consider

their act of registration to be their last definite action

to find work, especially if reregistration is not required each

month in order to obtain unemployment benefits. A crossclassification between jobseeking activities and time of last

active job search would help to resolve this point.

Results from the January and April 1977 surveys,

like the results of the special April 1973 and 1975 surveys, indicate that a large number of persons classified as

“not in the labor force” in former surveys were actually

actively seeking work by registering at official or private

employment agencies, answering or placing advertisements

in the newspapers, sending letters, or meeting with prospective employers. As noted above, the 1977 surveys also indicated that a significant proportion of persons previously

enumerated as unemployed did not take any recent—i.e.,

within the past 30 days—active steps to find work.31 The

major results of the January 1977 survey are shown in table

B-20.

Beginning in January 1977, persons who are waiting

to begin new jobs are enumerated as unemployed. There is

no specific question on this point, but it is one of the responses listed to the question “Are you actively seeking

work?” Such persons were most likely classified as not in

31The January 1977 results indicate that 65 percent of the previously employed unemployed took active steps to find work in the

past 30 days; for the first-time jobseekers, the proportion was 55

percent; for those who first did not declare themselves as employed,

the proportion was 32 percent. In the April 1977 survey, the corresponding proportions were 63,53, and 33 percent.

the labor force in earlier surveys. The category of persons

seeking their first job was defined more broadly in January

1977 to include persons who had voluntarily discontinued

working for a period of time not less than 1 year. Under the

previous definition, such reentrants to the labor force were

not included among the first-time jobseekers. They were

classified as “seeking a new job.”

Table B-20. Italy: Major results of the January 1977

labor force survey

(Thousands)

Item Total Men Women

Labor fo r c e ......................................... 21,357 14,551 6,806

Employed ....................................... 19,898 13,904 5,994

Persons stating they have a

job ......................................... 18,991 13,499 5,492

Persons first stating they

were unemployed, but then

admitting to some type of

work in reference week . . . 907 405 502

Unemployed . ....................... 1,459 647 812

Previously em ployed................ 253 159 94

Seeking first job ...................... 619 308 311

Persons who first stated

they were inactive but

subsequently affirmed

they were looking for

w o r k ...................................... 587 180 407

Nonworking population................... 34,132 12,517 21,615

Persons of working age1 ............. 18,220 4,784 13,436

Not seeking employment but

would accept work under

certain conditions ...... 1,12 2 233 889

Persons not of working age2 . . . 15,912 7,733 8,179

Total population3 ............................. 55,489 27,068 28,421

1 Ages 14 through 70.

\ Under age 14 and over age 70.

^Sum of labor force and nonworking population.

SOURCE: Istituto Centrale di Statistica.

132

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Method o f adjustment. From January 1977 onward, the

only adjustment made to the reported number of unemployed is the exclusion of those who had not taken any

active steps to find jobs in the past 30 days. As noted

above, BLS is not certain that all persons should be excluded who reported no active steps in the past 30 days.

The large number of persons in this category indicates a

massive number of “discouraged workers” in Italy or an

interpretation by many registered unemployed persons

that their presence on the unemployment register does not

constitute an active step to find work in the past 30 days.

In the adjustments shown here, BLS has excluded all persons who reported no active steps to find work in the past

30 days. This adjustment may be modified when more information on the 1977 survey, and more detailed results,

become available. In January 1977, 52.6 percent of the

reported unemployment has been subtracted; in April,

the proportion subtracted was 54.4 percent.

No adjustment has been made to exclude persons

on layoff from the unemployed count. For many years

Italy has had a Wage Supplement Fund (Cassa Integrazione

Guadagni) maintained by employer contributions, which

provides payments to compensate workers put on part time

for economic reasons of a temporary nature. Also, legal

restraints make it very difficult for firms to lay off workers.

For these reasons, the term layoff has a somewhat different,

more structured meaning in Italy than in the United States.

Thus, when the activity of a plant declines, workers are put

on short-time schedules, if at all possible, rather than laid

off. According to a 1969 report from the U.S. Embassy in

Rome, the number on part time who did no work at all during the reference week could not be accurately reported

by ISTAT because there were so few workers in that category.

1ST AT will not make a reconciliation between the old

and new surveys until some time in 1978. It is not yet

known what the nature of this reconciliation will be and

whether historical adjustments will be made. BLS has decided to await the ISTAT reconciliation rather than make

any preliminary adjustments for the period 1959-76. Thus,

the reported unemployment figures from the old Italian

survey are used here, with only a small adjustment to the

data for 1959-63 (discussed later). The differences between

the old series and the adjusted new series may tend to cancel each other out. The old series excluded the workseekers

who did not initially declare themselves as unemployed;

also excluded were persons waiting to begin a new job. On

the other hand, the old series included as unemployed

those persons who took no active steps to find work in the

past 30 days. The results from January and April 1977 indicate that the old series may have overstated unemploy ­

ment somewhat because the number of persons who did

not actively seek work in the past 30 days is greater than

the number of workseekers who did not initially say they

were unemployed.

The results of the special April 1973 and 1975 labor

force surveys provided information on the number of job

seekers who did not initially declare they were unemployed.

However, these surveys were not used to adjust the unemployment data because they did not provide any information

on the time period in which active jobseeking last occurred.

Thus, no adjustment could be made to exclude the inactive

workseekers.

One other minor adjustment has been made to the

data for 1959 to 1963. According to the report of the Statistical Office of the European Communities on the results

of the October 1960 labor force survey conducted in the

six member countries, 4.4 percent of those reported as unemployed in Italy in October 1960 were engaged in some

work during the survey week. However, this would probably include some unpaid family workers who worked less

than 15 hours in the survey week and who would be classified as unemployed according to U.S. definitions if they

were seeking paid employment. To roughly adjust the

Italian unemployment figures for 1959-63 to exclude persons who worked during the survey week, the published

figures have been reduced by 3 percent. No adjustments

are needed after 1963 since such persons were excluded

from the reported unemployed after that date.

Labor force

The labor force consists of all employed and unemployed persons 14 years of age and over; career military

personnel are included. Prior to 1964, the labor force consisted of all “regularly” employed persons 10 years of age

and over and unemployed persons 14 years of age and over.

Unpaid family workers are included in the labor force regardless of the number of hours worked.

The employed consist of persons age 14 and over who

worked for pay or profit during the survey week or who

were temporarily absent from work as a result of sickness,

holidays, or temporary layoff. Prior to 1964. employed persons consisted of all those 10 years of age or over who stated

they had jobs, regardless of the number of hours they

worked. Persons 10 years of age and over who did some

work in the survey week but who stated they did not have

jobs were classified as either (a) occasional workers and

“not in the labor force” or (b) unemployed, if 14 years

of age or over and actively seeking a job. Beginning in

1964, the occasional worker category was dropped in

favor of underemployed persons—defined as persons who

worked less than 33 hours in the reference week because of

economic reasons, i.e., lack of work, and not because of

their own preference.32 Underemployed persons are classified as a subcategory of employed persons and therefore as

“in the labor force.” ISTAT revised data for 1963 by (1;

32Beginning in January 1977, underemployed persons ate defined as those who worked less than 26 hours for economic reasons.

133

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adding all persons formerly classified as occasional workers

to the employed category and (2) reclassifying part of the

new total employed category into the underemployed subcategory. (The new definitions were apparently introduced

in' 1963 so that 1963 survey results could be classified according to both the old and new labor force status definitions.) For years prior to 1963,1ST AT added the total “occasional worker” category to the employed total.

The January and April 1977 labor force surveys indicated that employment as well as unemployment was

understated by prior surveys. Approximately 1 million persons who did not initially respond that they were employed

stated, under further questioning, that they had done some

work during the reference week.33 Unfortunately, no information on this point was obtained in the special surveys

conducted in April 1973 and 1975.

Method o f adjustment. Data on career military personnel

in Italy can be obtained from figures reported to the Statistical Office of the European Communities. The career

military are subtracted from the reported labor force to

arrive at the civilian labor force.

Employed youths under the age of 14 are subtracted,

including those classified as occasional workers in 1959-62;

no adjustment is needed on this point after 1965.

Unpaid family workers not at work in the survey

week are subtracted. These figures are reported in the survey. “Regularly employed” unpaid family workers at work

1 but less than 16 hours in the survey week are also subtracted. U.S. definitions would exclude unpaid family workers at work less than 15 hours in the survey week; however,

the Italian data do not provide a break at the less-than45-

hours level.

For the years 1959-63, the number of “occasional

workers” at work less than 16 hours in the survey week as

unpaid family workers is subtracted. In 1963, 75,000 “occasional workers” worked as unpaid family workers, of

whom 25,000 worked less than 16 hours. Prior to 1963, the

number of unpaid family “occasional workers” was not

classified by number of hours worked. Since one-third of

the unpaid family occasional workers worked less than 16 3

3 3 There is also a large sector of illegal unreported unemployment

in Italy known as il lavoro m ro, or the labor black market. Use of the

labor black market allows firms to pay lower wages and avoid payments into social security and similar funds, which are very high in

Italy relative to wages. Also, firms using black market labor can bypass laws that make it virtually impossible to lay off workers in

slack periods. Becuase the jobs are unreported, there are also no

tax or social security deductions from the wages received by the

workers. No attempt has been made here to determine the effect of

the labor black market on the labor force survey results. Some illegally employed workers may report their employment in the

survey, but it is likely that many will respond that they are either

not in the labor force or unemployed. For a discussion of hidden

employment in Italy see CENS1S, L ’Occupazione Occulta, CENSIS

Ricerca No. 2 (Rome, CENSIS, 1976).

hours in 1963, it is roughly estimated that one-third of unpaid family occasional workers worked less than 16 hours

in prior years, and they have been subtracted from the

labor force.

Results of the January and April 1977 labor force

surveys indicate that employed Italian men were undercounted by 3 percent and women by 9 percent. These figures were also reported by economic sector. To make adjustments for the unreported employed for the entire 1959-

76 period, adjustment factors were applied for four separate categories of the employed: (1) Men in agriculture;

(2) men in nonagricultural activities; (3) women in agriculture; and (4) women in nonagricultural activities. Factors

relating to sectors as well as sex were used because there

has been a massive shift out of the agricultural sector in

Italy since 1959. The figures for January and April 1977

indicate that unreported employment is predominantly

in the agricultural sector.

The adjustment factors used were averages calculated

from the January and April 1977 data. The factors, relating

to unreported as a percent of reported employment, were

as follows: For men in agriculture—10.1 percent; for men in

nonagricultural activities—2 percent; for women in agriculture-21.7 percent; for women in nonagricultural activities6.7 percent. A further adjustment was made to exclude

persons in the unreported employed category who were

unpaid family workers who worked 15 hours or less in the

reference week. Data are not yet available on this point

from the 1977 surveys. However, these surveys indicated

that about 60 percent of the previously unreported employed were either self-employed or unpaid family workers.

It is believed that a significant proportion of the unreported

employed could be unpaid family workers who worked

only a few hours a week. Persons in this category should be

excluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Persons

with such a marginal attachment to the labor force would

most likely initially respond that their status was other

than employed—e.g., housewife, student, etc. In the absence of exact data on this point, 10 percent of the “unreported employed,” as calculated above for the years

1959-76, was subtracted to account for unpaid family

workers who worked less than 15 hours. BLS is attempting

to get precise figures on this point from ISTAT, perhaps

from unpublished tabulations. Table B-21 shows the

method of obtaining unreported employment for 1959-

76. The labor force therefore has been adjusted to U.S.

concepts by adding estimates of unreported employment

and subtracting career military personnel, employed

youths under age 14, and unpaid family workers who

worked less than 16 hours in the survey week. There may

be some duplication between the latter two categories—

that is, unpaid family workers under age 14 who worked

less than 16 hours in the survey week. However, after

1965 there have been no employed youths under age

14 reported and duplication in prior years could not have

been large.

Digitized for FRASER 

134

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-21. Italy: Calculation of unreported employment, 1959-76

(Thousands)

Year

Reported employment Estimated unreported employment1 Adjusted

un reported

employment2

Agricultural Nonagricultural Total Agricultural Nonagricultural

Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women

1959 ................ 34,449 3 2,301 39,315 3 3,822, 1,390 449 499 186 256 1,251

1960 ................ a4,353 3 2,124 39,596 33,792 1,347 440 461 192 254 1,2 12

1 9 6 1 ................ 3 4,060 3 2,072 39,900 33 ,9 04 ; 1,320 410 450 198 262 1,188

1962 ................ 33,781 31,988 3 10,190 3 3,879| 1,277 382 431 204 260 1,149

1963 ................ 33,500 31,765 310,406 3 3,868 1,204 354 383 208 259 1,084

1964 ................ 3 3,307 3 1,621 3 10,715 33,807 1,155 334 352 214 255 1,039

1965 ................ 3 3,349 3 1,544 310,398 3 3,693 1,128 338 335 208 247 1,015

1966 ................ 3,192 1,397 10,428 3,620 1,077 322 303 209 243 969

1967 ................ 3,122 1,358 10,697 3,669 1,070 315 295 214 246 963

1968 ................ 2,869 1,304 10,880 3,747 1,042 290 283 218 251 938

1969 ................ 2,706 1,245 10,879 3,781 1,020 273 270 218 259 918

1970 ................ 2,499 1,114 11,170 3,910 979 252 242 223 262 881

1 9 7 1 ................ 2,453 1,135 11,164 3,893 978 248 246 223 261 880

1972 ................ 2,274 1,024 11,176 3,857 934 230 222 224 258 841

1973 ................ 2,176 1,016 11,306 4,002 934 220 220 226 268 841

1974 ................ 2,105 1,006 11,571 4,216 944 213 218 231 282 850

1975 ................ 1,999 965 11,717 4,315 934 202 209 234 289 841

1976 ................ 1,959 970 11,742 4,455 941 198 210 235 298 847

Adjustments based on figures from the January and April 1977

labor force surveys. For men in agriculture—10.1 percent of reported employment; for women in agriculture—21.7 percent; for

men in nonagricultural activities—2 percent; for women in nonagricultural activities—6.7 percent.

Unemployment rate

The figure for the unemployed (adjusted to exclude

those who worked in 1959-63) is divided by the adjusted

labor force figure to arrive at Italian unemployment rates

compatible with U.S. concepts. The resulting rates for 1959

through 1963 are about two-tenths of a percentage point

lower than the reported Italian unemployment rate (table

B-22). For 1964-76, the adjusted unemployment rates are

one-tenth of a percentage point lower than the published

rates. Beginning in January 1977, however, the published

Italian unemployment data are on the revised basis and are

much higher than previously reported. The adjusted figures

are much lower than the reported unemployment rates because of the exclusion of a large number of inactive workseekers.

Annual average unemployment rates are calculated by

1ST AT as the average of the relevant data for January,

April, July, and October. The average for these four dates is

not exactly representative of the calendar year; however,

BLS has not adjusted these data to a calendar-year basis.

Quarterly estimates

BLS estimates seasonally adjusted unemployment

2

Total unreported employment less 10 percent to account for

unpaid family workers who worked less than 15 hours in the reference week.

3 Adjusted to exclude employed persons under age 14.

rates adjusted to U.S. concepts for Italy. Since the Italian

labor force survey is conducted quarterly, no monthly estimates of joblessness on the labor force survey basis are

made.

Unemployment. Italy does not publish seasonally adjusted

labor force data. For 1970 through 1976, BLS seasonally

adjusted the reported Italian unemployment figures; no

adjustments for comparability with U.S. concepts have

been made to these figures. Seasonal adjustment is by the

multiplicative version of the U.S. Bureau of the Census

X-l 1 Variant, Method II, seasonal adjustment program.

The unemployment data beginning in 1977 do require adjustment for comparability with U.S. concepts.

After adjustment, the data have been seasonally adjusted

based on the previous year’s seasonal factors. This assumes

that seasonal factors based on the pre-1977 survey results

are applicable to the new, adjusted, survey results.

Labor force. BLS seasonally adjusts the reported quarterly

Italian labor force data and then applies factors to adjust

the figures for comparability with U.S. definitions.

135

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-22. Italy: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959*76

(Numbers in thousands)

Item 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

Reported labor force............................................................................ 21,286 20,972 20,882 20,629 20,137 20,026 19,717 19,396 19,525

Less: Career military personnel................................................... 182 134 154 160 155 192 188 176 185

Less: Employed persons

under age 1 4 ......................................................................... ... . 282 271 236 180 94 27 19 0 0

Less: Unpaid family workers

not at w o r k ................................................................................... *75 70 62 38 58 21 19 2 37 231

Less: Unpaid family workers

at work less than 16 hours ...................................................... 60 55 41 27 62 66 76 60 49

Less: Unpaid family "occasional

workers" at work less than

16 hours......................................................................................... 3 206 3 139 3 130 386 3 25 (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4 )

Plus: Unreported employment5 ................................................... 1,251 1,2 12 1,188 1,149 1,084 1,039 1,015 969 963

Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................ 21,732 21,515 21,447 21,287 20,827 20,759 20,430 20,092 20,223

R o un ded ...................................................................................... 21,730 21,520 21,450 21,290 20,830 20,760 20,430 20,090 20,220

Reported unemployment6 ............................................................... 1,117 836 710 611 504 549 714 759 679

Less: Reported unemployed

who worked in the survey

w e e k ............................................................................................... 34 25 21 18 15 (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4 )

Adjusted unem ployed......................................................................... 1,083 811 689 593 489 549 714 759 679

Rounded ............................................................................................ 1,080 810 690 590 490 550 710 760 680

Unemployment rate (percent):

As published...................................................................................... 5.2 4.0 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.7 3.6 3.9 3.5

Adjusted to U.S. concepts......................................... .................. 5.0 3.8 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.6 3.5 3.8 3.4

1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Reported labor force......................................................... .................. 19,484 19,266 19,302 19,254 19,028 19,169 19,458 19,650 19,858

Less: Career military person nel................................................... 195 198 182 190 191 191 183 169 169

Less: Employed persons

under age 1 4 ............................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Less: Unpaid family workers

not at w o r k .................................................................................. 235 2 17 2 19 2 18 221 222 2 17 2 14 2 1 2

Less: Unpaid family workers

at work less than 16 hours ...................................................... 60 51 35 61 44 50 46 39 36

Less: Unpaid family "occasional

workers" at work less than

16 hours......................................................................................... (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) . (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4) (4 )

Plus: Unreported employment5 ................................................... 938 918 881 880 841 841 850 841 847

Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................ 20,132 19,918 19,947 19,865 19,613 19,747 20,062 20,269 20,488

R ounded............................................................................................ 20,130 19,920 19,950 19,870 19,610 19,750 20,060 20,270 20,490

Reported unemployment6 ............................................ .................. 684 655 609 609 697 668 560 654 732

Less: Reported unemployed

who worked in the survey

w e e k ............................................................................................ . (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4 )

Adjusted unem ployed......................................................................... 684 655 609 609 697 668 560 654 732

R o un ded...................... ..................................................................... 680 660 610 610 700 670 560 650 730

Unemployment rate (percent):

As published...................................................................................... 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.5 2.9 3.3 3.7

Adjusted to U.S. concepts...................................... ...................... 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.4 2.8 3.2 3.6

1 Estimated based on 1960 ratios. 2

Includes unknowns.

3 Estimated as one-third of all "occasional workers" who worked

as family workers.

4 Not applicable after 1963.

5 See table B-21.

6 Sum of reported unemployed and first-time jobseekers.

136

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Sweden

Sweden depended for many years on unemployment statistics maintained by trade unions. From 1956

to mid-1974, however, the Swedish Labor Market Board

used monthly statistics on registrations of the unemployed

at local unemployment offices. In July 1974, these

monthly counts were replaced by new statistics showing the

total volume of employment applications passing through

the employment offices. At the same time, the monthly

labor force sample survey, begun on a regular quarterly

basis in 1962 and on a monthly basis in 1970, was established as the official source for Swedish unemployment

figures.

Unemployment

Registered unemployed. Prior to July 1974, registration statistics comprised all persons registered as unemployed with

the employment offices on the Monday in the week including the 15th of the month. The new employment application statistics, introduced in July 1974, represent the first

phase of a coordinated statistical information system covering employment applications, job vacancies, and labor

market policy measures. This system is intended to form

the basis for planning activities at all levels of the employment service organization.

The new statistics cover all persons who file employment applications at the employment offices, whether unemployed or not. They show for each month the total

inflow and outflow of applicants, the number of individuals

transferring to retraining programs or public works projects,

and the number of applicants remaining on the registers at

the end of each month. Statistics on registered insured unemployment are also available. These figures comprise

registrants for unemployment benefits by members of

unemployment insurance funds established by trade

unions. About two-thirds of the labor force belong to these

funds. Statistics on applications at employment offices and

on insured unemployment are published monthly by the

National Labor Market Board in Arbetsmarknadsstatistik

(Labor Market Statistics).

Labor force surveys. Since 1959, the Swedish Central

Bureau of Statistics has made sample surveys of the labor

force which are closely comparable in concepts and definitions to the U.S. survey. The 1959 surveys, conducted

in May and November, were experimental. Two more were

made in 1960 and three more in 1961. From 1962 through

1969, quarterly surveys were conducted in February, May,

August, and November. Beginning in 1970, surveys have

been made on a monthly basis. The surveys are conducted

by telephone interview and relate to the week including

the 15th of the month. Results are published monthly by

the Central Bureau of Statistics in Arbetskraftsundersokningen (The Labor Force Survey).

About 12,000 persons were interviewed in the quarterly surveys. The sample size of the monthly surveys is

currently 23,000 persons.

The unemployed consist of all persons (excluding

invalids and institutionalized persons) between the ages of

16 and 74 who were not at work in the survey week (unpaid family workers who worked less than 15 hours in the

survey week are considered not at work) who:

1. State they were looking for work (including per­ sons awaiting the results of previous applications) within the past 60 days (counted from the last day of the survey week); or 2. Were waiting to be called back to a job from which they were laid off without pay ; or 3. Were waiting to start a new job within 30 days; or 4. Would have looked for work except for being temporarily ill.

Prior to 1970, all persons 14 years of age and over

were covered by the labor force surveys. However, data for

these years were collected in such a way that revision to the

new age limits of 16 to 74, instituted in 1970, could be

made by Swedish authorities.

The 1967 revisions of the U.S. definitions brought

them closer to the Swedish definitions. Under the revised

U.S. definitions, a person must have engaged in some specific jobseeking activity within the past 4 weeks to be counted

as unemployed. Prior to the revisions, there had been no

specific question concerning methods of seeking work. In

the Swedish survey there is a specific question—“In what

way did you seek work?’’-which is partially a check on

the earlier question—“Were you looking for work?” This is

quite similar to the current U.S. procedure. However, the

time limit in the Swedish survey is 60 days rather than the

4-week period specified in the U.S. survey.

As in the United States, discouraged workers are

classified as not in the labor force in Sweden.34 Until 1976,

Sweden collected data on discouraged workers by asking

the question: “Would you have looked for work if you

believed suitable work was available in your area?” In 1976,

the phrasing of the question was changed, and the following three questions are now asked of persons not in the

labor force: “Would you have liked to have worked last

week?” “Were you prevented from working last week?”

and “Why were you prevented from working last week?”

In the United States, the questioning procedure relating to

discouraged workers is similar to that now used in Sweden.

In the Swedish survey, students seeking work and

currently available for work are supposed to be classified

as unemployed, i.e., the classification used in the U.S. survey for such persons. However, a problem in enumerating

unemployed students arises from the fact that there is no

specific test of current availability for work in the Swedish

questionnaire. In practice, therefore, the interviewers are

34In Sweden, discouraged workers are referred to as the “latent

unemployed.”

Digitized for FRASER 

137

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
instructed to consider full-time students as unavailable for

work except during school vacations in order that a student

seeking work during the school term, but available for work

only during school vacation, would be excluded from the

unemployed count—the same practice as in the United

States. This practice, however, results in the classification

of Swedish students seeking part-time work after school

hours as not in the labor force. In the United States, they

would be regarded as unemployed.

In Sweden, “active labor market” policies are highly

developed and provide a comprehensive system of institutions for training and retraining. Persons who are given a

wage or salary payment while receiving on-the-job training

or attending courses at the request of the employer are

classified as employed in the Swedish labor force survey.

This is the practice followed in the United States. Unlike

the United States, however, Sweden classifies as “not in

the labor force” persons receiving government-sponsored

vocational training or retraining without wage or salary

payment. Such persons generally would be regarded as

unemployed in the United States.

Method o f adjustment. No adjustments have been made in

the Swedish unemployed count as measured by the labor

force surveys. It is not necessary to add figures for unemployed persons age 75 and over since unemployment

among such persons is negligible.

No adjustment has been made for students seeking

work during the school term. Data derived from the new

questions on discouraged workers indicate that the number

of such students is small. The number of students who

would have liked a job and who were currently available for

work during the survey week averaged about 4,000 in 1976.

However, this represents an upper limit of the possible

number of unemployed students who should be added because not all of these students were actively seeking work.

Even at the upper limit, the resulting increase in the unemployment rate would be only about one-tenth of 1 percent.

No adjustment could be made for the more lengthy

period allowed for jobseeking activities in Sweden—60 days

as opposed to the 4-week period specified in the U.S. survey. The longer period allowed in Sweden undoubtedly

results in some upward bias in the Swedish unemployment

data when compared with U.S. figures.

No adjustment could be made for the classification

of persons in government-sponsored institutional training

programs as outside the labor force rather than unemployed.

The monthly average number of persons in training for

labor market reasons rose continuously from 8,100 in 1961

to 46,000 in 1973, then moved downward to 36,000 in

1975. However, all such persons would not be regarded as

unemployed under U.S. concepts. For example, some

Swedish training programs for youth are similar to the U.S.

Job Corps program. Participants in the Job Corps are considered as not in the labor force. Also, an unknown number

of persons in the Swedish training programs receive a wage

or salary in connection with on-the-job training. These

persons are counted as employed in both Sweden and the

United States.

Inclusion of all persons in Swedish training and retraining programs in the unemployed count would raise the

comparative Swedish rate by two-tenths of a percentage

point in 1961 (from 1.5 to 1.7) and by 1.1 percentage

points in 1973 (from 2.5 to 3.6). These figures, of course,

represent the outer limits of the probable effect of reclassifying these persons according to the U.S. method. The effect is much smaller if we focus only upon special retraining programs for persons previously unemployed. There

were 4,700 persons in such courses in 1961 and 17,100

in 1973. Addition of these persons to the unemployed

count would raise the Swedish rate by one-tenth of a percentage point in 1961 and four-tenths of a percentage point

in 1973.

Labor force

The labor force figures used in Sweden include career

military personnel. The civilian labor force is used in U.S.

calculations of unemployment rates. Therefore, adjustments are made to the reported Swedish labor force to

eliminate the career military (about 18,000 persons). Data

on career military personnel are obtained from Swedish

population censuses. A small adjustment is also made to include in the labor force persons age 75 and older. Data on

these persons were available from the quarterly surveys

conducted in the 1961-69 period. From 1970 onward,

these data are derived from special tabulations.

Unemployment rate

The published Swedish unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the unemployed by the total labor force

aged 16 to 74. The adjusted rate is computed by dividing

the unemployed by the civilian labor force, adjusted to

include those 75 years old and over and to exclude career

military personnel. The effects of the adjustments are so

small that the reported and adjusted rates are identical

in most years (table B-23).

Quarterly and monthly estimates

The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates seasonally

adjusted unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts

for Sweden. The method used to make these estimates is

as follows:

Unemployment. Since the Swedish labor force survey concept of unemployment is quite similar to that of the U.S.,

no adjustment is made for comparability. BLS uses the

Central Bureau of Statistics’ (SCB) seasonally adjusted unemployment series. The SCB seasonally adjusts using the

Digitized 

138

for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table B-23. Sweden: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1961-76

(Numbers in thousands)

Item 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Registered unemployed ................................................................................ 21.0 23.3 24,8 21.2 20.0 26.7 35.3 40.1

Registered insured unemployed ................................................................ 16.6 18.6 20.1 17.0 16.6 22.2 28.8 33.4

Percent of total insured ...................................................................... 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0

Labor force survey data:

Reported labor force:1

Age 14 and above ................................................................................ 23,670 3,746 3,813 3,779 3,796 3,847 3,817 3,867

Age 16 to 7 4 .................................................................................. 2 3,592 3,676 3,749 3,710 3,738 3,792 3,774 3,822

Age 14 and 15 ................................................ ................... ... 54 46 42 49 38 34 27 27

Age 75 and over1 23 . ................................................................................ 24 24 22 20 20 21 16 18

Labor force age 16 and over ..................................................................... 3,616 3,700 3,771 3,730 3,758 3,813 3,790 3,840

Less: Career military personnel .......................................................... 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 18

Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................ 3,598 3,682 3,753 3,711 3,739 3.794 3,771 3,822

Reported unemployed:

Age 16 to 7 4 ......................................................................................... 252 54 63 57 44 59 79 85

Reported unemployment rate

(percent)

Age 16 to 7 4 ................ ...................................................................... 2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.2

Adjusted unemployment rate

(percent)4 ............................................................... ............................... 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.2

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Registered unemployed ............................................................. 36.0 36.5 59.6 69.0 66.2 _ _ —

Registered insured unemployed ................................................................ 29.9 29.5 45.3 48.2 46.0 39.0 36.7 32.7

Percent of total insured ......................................................... 1.7 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.2

Labor force survey data:

Reported labor force: 1

Age 14 and above ............................................................................... 3,877 - - - — - - -

Age 16 to 7 4 ......................................................................................... 3,840 3,913 3,961 3,969 3,977 4,043 4,129 4,155

Age 14 and 15 ...................................................................................... 23 - — - - - - -

Age 75 and over3 ................................................................................... 14 14 12 12 12 12 12 12

Labor force age 16 and over ......................................................... ... 3,854 3,927 3,973 3,981 3,989 4,055 4,141 4,167

Less: Career military personnel......................................................... 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................ 3,836 3,909 3,955 3,963 3,971 4,037 4,123 4,149

Reported unemployed:

Age 16 to 7 4 ........................................................................................ 72 59 101 107 98 80 67 66

Reported unemployment rate

(percent)

Age 16 to 7 4 ................................................... ..................................... 1.9 1.5 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.0 1.6 1.6

Adjusted unemployment rate

(percent)4 ............................................................................................... 1.9 1.5 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.0 1.6 1.6

1 Beginning January 1970, the age limits of the Swedish labor

force survey were revised to cover persons age 16 to 74. Previously,

persons age 14 and above were covered. A revised series of data back

to 1962 based on the new age limits has been published by Swedish

authorities.

2

Only three surveys were conducted in 1961. Therefore, the

average figures for the three surveys have been adjusted slightly

(based on ratios obtained from the 1962 surveys) to compensate

for the missing February data.

3 Labor force age 14 and above minus labor force age 16 to 74

and labor force age 14 and 15 for 1961-69; figures on persons

75 years old and over were published in special tabulations for 1970

and 1971. The 1971 figure is being used for 1972 and later years

until special tabulations for those years become available.

Reported unemployment age 16 to 74 as percent of adjusted

civilian labor force. The number of unemployed persons age 75 and

over is negligible.

multiplicative version of the SA-4 program of the Swedish

Institute of Economic Research. This series is published in

the SCR monthly, Arbetskraftsundersokningen. The SCB

revises its seasonally adjusted series when full-year data are

available.

Labor force, Swedish labor force data require a small adjustment for comparability to U.S. definitions. The ratio

of annual average labor force adjusted to U.S. concepts to

annual average “as published” labor force is applied to

seasonally adjusted monthly labor force data. The SCB does

Digitized for FRASER 

139

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
not publish a seasonally adjusted labor force series; therefore, BLS seasonally adjusts the Swedish labor force using

the multiplicative version of the U.S. Bureau of the Census

X -ll Variant, Method II, seasonal adjustment program.

The previous year’s seasonal factors are applied to current

data until the full year’s experience can be incorporated

into the seasonal adjustment program.

140

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

1. Did you do any paid work last week?

(w eek.................i. e................................. ) ?

2. We will include paid work and work in your own business (farmers

included) or freelance work, even if it did not take more than an hour.

Did you do any work of this kind last week (..................................)?

3. How did you spend most of last week? Were you running your own

home (studying) or doing something else ?

AH

ST

O

FR

SO

VPL

IA

LS

Running your own home

Studying

Miscellaneous

Temporarily absent from work

Looking for work

Military service

Admitted for institutional treatment

Chronically ill or an invalid

4. Has any member of your family (Has your husband or any other

member of your family) whom you live with a business of his/her

own (including a farm) or a freelance type of job?

5. Did you do any work in his/her business last week (......................... )

without being paid money for it?

141

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

6. How many hours did you work last week (........................................)?

Include any overtime, as well as extra work or an extra job.

7. Are you employed even though you did not do any paid work last week?

Or are you self-employed (including farmers) or a freelance?

8. Were you looking for work last week (................................................

.....................)?

9. Why were you away from work last week (........................................)?

1 = ill

2 = on holiday

3 = on military service

4 = industrial dispute

5 - leave of absence or some other reason

6 = temporarily laid off without pay

7 = waiting to start a new job within 30 days

10. In what way did you look for work?

Af = Employment Service

Ag = employer

An = advertisement (s)

O = some other way (s)

11. How many weeks have you been looking for work (or laid off)?

12. Do you belong to an approved unemployment benefit society?

13A. Who was your main employer last week

(when you were last employed)?

13B. Is the firm a limited company?

Digitized for FRASER 

142

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

14. What is the main line of business (production) of the firm (work-place)?

15A. What was your main work last week (when you were last employed) ?

15B. In what occupation would you class this work?

16. Last week (when you were last employed), did you work as . . .

1. a self-employed person

2. an employee

3. a member of the family, helping without being paid money

17. Did you have any employees?

18. Were you employed by

3. state/national authorities

4. municipal/local authorities or

5. a private employer?

19. Last week, then, you worked f o r...................hours.

Would you have liked more work?

20. Could you have taken on more work last week?

21. How many hours would you have liked to have worked altogether

last week (........................................................ )?

22. How many hours do you normally put in every week at your job

(IF MORE THAN ONE/OM FLERA: at your jobs)?

23. Why did you work less than 35 hours last week?

24. Why do you usually work less than 35 hours per week?

Digitized for FRASER 

143

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

25. Why did you work less than 35 hours last week and not any other week?

01 Not enough work to be had, factory/machinery being repaired,

shortage of m aterials, production reduced

02 Busy looking after the home and family

03 111 myself

04 Studying

05 Full working week less than 35 hours

06 Leave of absence or some other reason

07 Do not want to work full time

08 Left a job or started a new one during the week

09 On holiday

10 Bad weather

11 Industrial dispute

26. How many hours do you normally put in every week at your job

(IF MORE THAN ONE/OM FLERA: at your jobs)?

27. Why do you usually work less than 35 hours per week?

1. Not enough work to be had, factory/machinery being repaired,

shortage of materials, production reduced

2. Busy looking after the home and family

3. Ill myself

4. Studying

5. Full working week less than 35 hours

6. Other reason(s)

7. Do not want to work full time

28. Would you have liked to have had work last week (..............................)?

29. Could you have taken on work last week, or were you prevented

from doing so?

Digitized for FRASER 

144

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

30. What was your main reason for not being gainfully employed last

week or for not applying for gainful employment?

1 No suitable job opportunities in the area

2 Person interviewed rates his/her chances of obtaining

employment as small

3 Other reason(s)

31. What was your main reason for being unable to take on work last week?

4 Nobody to look after the children

5 Too busy with housework and/or with nursing in the family

6 Busy studying

7 111 or temporarily admitted for institutional care

8 Other reason(s)

32. How many hours would you have liked to have worked last week?

33. Have you ever applied for work, and if so, when?

34. When did you last apply for work?

35. How many hours would you have liked to have worked last week?

37. One can start looking for a job immediately after leaving another job,

or one may wish to start working again after a period without work.

- How did you start to look for work? "Immediately" here means

not more than one month?

145

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

38. Did you leave your job in connection with personnel or production

cuts, because the work you were engaged for was completed or for

some other reason?

1 Personnel or production cut

2 Work completed

3 Reasons of health (including early retirement)

4 Child care, housework

5 Studies

6 Retirement

7 Removal to another area

8 Other reason(s)

39. What is your marital status?

1 Married

2 Unmarried

3 Formerly married (widow, widower, divorced)

40. Have you any children living at home who are under 17?

a. How many?

b. How old are they?

A. We shall be coming back for an interview i n .............(month). Can we then

a. get in touch with you via the same telephone number?

(IF YOUR PHONE NUMBER WILL BE DIFFERENT/OM NYTT

TELEFON NUMMER):

Will you also be changing your address ?

What will your new address be?

b. get in touch with you by phone?

(IF SO/OM JA):

What will your phone number be?

Will you still have the same address i n ...........(month)?

(IF NOT/OM NEJ):

What will your new address be?

B. When do you think we will be likeliest to find you at home?

Digitized for FRASER 

146

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix C. Methods of Adjustment by Age and Sex

The adjusted unemployment rates by age and sex

(chapter 3) are less reliable than the overall adjusted unemployment rates. Whereas adjustments made to the overall

unemployment rates were based on published statistics generally available each year, adjustments by age and sex were

often partially estimated on the basis of data for years

other than those studied. For example, career military personnel and unpaid family workers working less than 15

hours a week had to be excluded from the labor force in

most countries for comparability with U.S. data. Such adjustments by age group for France and Italy were based on

age distributions from the 1960 labor force survey coordinated by the Statistical Office of the European Communities. (See appendix E.) For Japan, age distributions of career

military personnel were taken from the 1965 census.

The following sections present descriptions of the

methods of deriving comparative data by age and sex in the

nine countries studied.1 Since the methods used in 1968,

1970, and 1974-76 were identical, tables are shown only

for the 1968 adjustments (1971 for Great Britain).

Canada

Prior to the 1976 revision in the Canadian survey,

data were published with a lower age limit of 14. Separate

data were published on 14-year-olds, however, and they

have been excluded. The figures for 1968 and 1970 from

the old Canadian survey significantly understated female

unemployment and overstated male unemployment. Statistics Canada prepared a revised series for 1968 and 1970,

but did not show all detailed age breakdowns. For 1974,

figures for all age groups adjusted to the new survey concepts, which are comparable with U.S. statistics, were

available. For comparison, 1968, 1970, and 1974 figures

based on both the old and new surveys are shown.

Australia

No adjustments were made for Australia, since the

regularly published data are regarded as comparable with

U.S. statistics.

1 See appendix B for detailed descriptions of the methods used

to adjust each country’s overall unemployment rate to U.S. concepts, This appendix relates to additional estimates that have been

made to derive unemployment rates by age and sex.

Japan

The reported Japanese labor force includes career

military personnel and unpaid family workers working less

than 15 hours. The age distribution of the career military

labor force was based on the 1965 census age distribution

of protective service workers, of which the national defense

force is a part. The age and sex distribution of unpaid family

workers working less than 15 hours was based on the ratios

for all unpaid family workers. The published unemployed

figures do not require adjustment. The adjusted unemployment rates by age and sex for Japan are virtually the same

as the rates based on published data (table C-l).

France

Both the labor force and the number unemployed

require adjustment to U.S. concepts (table C-2). The reported labor force in the French labor force surveys includes career military and military contingents. Separate

totals for these groups are shown by sex in the survey but

are not broken down by age, Age distributions, therefore,

were assumed to be the same as in the 1960 survey coordinated by the Statistical Office of the European Communities. A further adjustment needs to be made to include persons living in collective households, such as hotels, which

are not within the scope of the survey. (See appendix B.)

Such persons are assumed to be employed and to have the

same age distribution as the surveyed labor force. After subtracting career military and military contingents and adding

an estimate of the civilian labor force not covered by the

surveys, the resulting civilian labor force is not entirely

compatible with U.S. concepts because it includes unpaid

family workers not at work or working less than 15 hours

during the week, persons reporting themselves as employed

but who were not at work because of “durable reasons”

(personal convenience or the nature of the job), unemployed

persons who had not commenced seeking work or are not

currently available for work, and 15-year-olds. Data are

available by sex for all of the above items except persons

not currently available for work. Such persons were distributed by sex according to the same proportions as unemployed persons who had not commenced seeking work.

Data by age are not separately available for any of these

items except 15-year-olds. Therefore, adjustment by age

for the other items is made by dividing each age-sex group

of the reported civilian labor force by the overall male and

147

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table C-1. Japan: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and sex, 1968

(N um bers in thousands)

Employment status

Total

15 years

and over

15 to 19

years

20 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over

Labor force

Both sexes................................................ 50,610 3,960 7,230 32,060 7,360

Less: Career military personnel1 

Less: Unpaid family workers

240 20 40 160 20

working less than 15 hours2 . . 690 40 60 450 130

Adjusted civilian labor force .... 49,680 3,900 7,130 31,450 7,210

M a le ......................................................... 30,580 1,980 3,910 19,900 4,790

Less: Career military personnel1 . .

Less: Unpaid family workers

240 20 40 160 20

working less than 15 hours2 . . 120 20 20 60 10

Adjusted civilian labor force . . . 30,220 1,940 3,850 19,680 4,760

Fem ale......................................................

Less: Unpaid family workers

20,030 1,990 3,320 12,140 2,580

working less than 15 hours2 . . 560 20 40 390 110

Adjusted civilian labor force .... 19,470 1,970 3,280 11,750 2,470

Unemployed

Both sexes................................................ 590 90 130 300 90

M a le ......................................................... 370 50 70 190 70

Fem ale......................................................

Unemployment rate (percent)

230 40 60 110 20

Adjusted to U.S. concepts:

Both sexes......................................... 1.2 2.3 1.8 1.0 1.2

M ale...................................................... 1.2 2.6 1.8 1.0 1.5

F e m a le ................................................

As published:

1.2 2.0 1.8 .9 .8

Both sexes......................................... 1.2 2.3 1.8 .9 1.2

M ale...................................................... 1.2 2.5 1.8 1.0 1.5

F e m a le ......................................... ... . 1.1 2.0 1.8 .9 .8

1 Age distribution of career military personnel based on 1965 SOURCE: Annual Report on the Labour Force Survey, 1975

census age distribution of protective service workers. (Tokyo, Office of the Prime Minister, Bureau of Statistics) and

Based on age distribution of all unpaid family workers. BLS adjustments.

NOTE: Because of rounding, subtotals may not add to totals.

female ratios of reported to adjusted civilian labor force 16

years of age and over.

The reported unemployment figures for France inclucie

persons who did some work but were looking for other jobs

in the survey week, persons who had not begun to seek

work or were not currently available for work, and 15-yearolds. These persons should be excluded for comparability

with U.S. concepts. On the other hand, the French unemployed count does not include persons who stated they

were employed but who did no work at all during the survey week because of partial unemployment or slack work

or because they were either waiting to start a new job or

left their previous employment. Such persons should be

included for comparability with U.S. concepts. Breakdowns

by age are not available for the above items; however, sex

breakdowns are available except for those persons not

currently available for work, discussed above. The number

of unemployed 15-year-olds is estimated by assuming they

have the same unemployment rate as all teenagers 15 to

19 years of age. Adjustments by age for the other differences are then made by dividing the reported number unemployed in each age-sex group by the overall male and

female ratios of reported to adjusted unemployed 16 years

of age and over.

The resulting adjusted unemployment rates for males

are only slightly lower than the figures based on the reported survey data. For females, however, the downward

adjustment is considerable. This is because reported female

unemployment contains a high proportion of the number

of persons who had not yet commenced seeking work or

were not currently available for work (table C-2).

Germany

The German labor force as reported in the April

Microcensus includes career military personnel, unpaid

family workers working less than 15 hours, and 14-yearolds. These groups must be excluded for comparability 

with U.S. statistics. All career military personnel in Germany are males and their age distribution can be determined from published age distributions of the labor force 

including and excluding the career military. Thehiumber of

Digitized for FRASER 

148

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table C-2. France: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and sex, IVIarch 1968

(N um bers in thousands)

Total !

i

Employment status 15 years

and over

16 years

and over

j 16 to 13 

years

20 to 24

years

25 to 54 

years

65 years 

arid over

Labor force

Both sexes................................................ 21,069 20,972 1,559 2,516 12,845 4,052

Less: Career military personnel1 . . 265 265 1 20 231 13

Plus: Labor force not surveyed2 . . 500 500 30 67 312 90

Civilian labor fo rce ................................ 21,304 21,207 1,588 2,563 12,926 4,129

Adjusted to U.S. concepts3 ............. 20,958 20,861 1,560 2,513 12,728 4,061

Male ......................................................... 13,133 13,064 867 1,279 8,433 2,486

Less: Career military personnel1 . . 228 228 1 16 201 10

Plus: Labor force not surveyed2 . . 310 310 17 34 203 55

Civilian labor fo rce................................ 13,215 13,146 883 1,297 8,435 2,531

Adjusted to U.S. concepts3 ............. 13,137 13,068 878 1,289 8,385 2,516

Female...................................................... 7,937 7,909 692 1,237 4,413 1,566

Less: Career military personnel1 . . 37 37 — 4 30 3

Plus: Labor force not surveyed2 . . 190 190 13 33 109 35

Civilian labor fo rce................................ 8,090 8,062 705 1,266 4,492 1,598

Adjusted to U.S. concepts 3............. 7,822 7,794 682 1,224 4,343 1,545

Unemployed

Both sexes ............................................... 656 648 141 1 1 1 294 103

Adjusted to U.S. concepts4 ............. 530 523 114 88 233 86

M a le ......................................................... 269 265 60 41 105 58

Adjusted to U.S. concepts4 ............. 250 246 56 38 97 54

Female...................................................... 387 385 81 70 189 45

Adjusted to U.S. concepts4 . . . . . 280 277 58 50 136 32

Unemployment rate (percent)

Adjusted to U.S. concepts:

Both sexes......................................... 2.5 2.5 7.3 3.5 1.8 2.1

M a le ...................................................... 1.9 1.9 6.4 2.9 1.2 2.1

Female................................................... 3.6 3.6 8.5 4.1 3.1 2.1

As published:

Both sexes......................................... 3.1 3.1 9.0 4.4 2.3 2.5

M a le ...................................................1 2.1 2.0 6.9 3.2 1.2 2.3

Female............................................... 4.9 4.9 11.7 5.7 4.3 2.9

*Age distribution based on figures from 1960 EEC labor force

survey. 2

Age distribution based on proportions from surveyed labor force

by age.

3Adjusted to exclude unpaid family workers not at work or

working less than 15 hours; employed persons not at work for "durable" reasons; and unemployed persons who have not commenced

seeking work or are not currently available for work. Figures on

these exclusions are available in total and by sex, but not by age.

Therefore, the adjusted figures by age group are derived by dividing

each age-sex group of civilian labor force by the overall male and

female ratios of reported to adjusted civilian labor force for 16-yearolds and over (male: 100.60; female: 103.44). 4

Adjusted to exclude persons classified as unemployed who

worked during the survey week, had not commenced seeking work,

or were not currently available for work, and to include persons

classified as employed who were not at work owing to the start or

cessation of a job or slack work. Figures for these adjustments are

available in total and by sex, but not by age. Therefore, the adjusted

figures by age group are derived by dividing the reported number

unemployed in each age-sex group by the overall male and female

ratios of reported to adjusted unemployed age 16 and over (male:

107.72; female: 138.99).

SOURCE: Enquetes Sur L'Emploi de 1968 et 1969, Resultats

detailles (Paris, lnstitut National de la Statistique et des Etudes

Economiques) and BLS adjustments.

unpaid family workers working less than 15 hours is published by sex. No age distributions are published, however.

Therefore, it was assumed that the age distribution of unpaid family workers who worked less than 15 hours was the

same as that for all unpaid family workers. Separate data

on 14-year-olds by sex are available from the Microcensus

results.

Microcensus unemployment is adjusted only to exclude 14-year-olds. The distribution of unemployed by age

was not published as such by Germany in 1968, but can

be derived by subtracting data on the employed by age

and sex from data on the labor force by age and sex. The

number of 14-year-olds in the unemployed count is obtained in this manner. Unemployment has been reported

by age in more recent years,

Digitized for FRASER 

149

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The resulting adjusted unemployment rates for Germany by age and sex are identical to or only one-tenth of

a percentage point higher than the rates based on the published data (table C-3).

Great Britain

Adjusted figures by age and sex for Great Britain

could be reliably prepared for 1971, the year of the first

General Household Survey, and later years. The regularly

published British data are from registered unemployment

statistics rather than a labor force survey. Data on registered

unemployed persons are particularly weak for comparisons

of youth unemployment, since a high proportion of unemployed youths are new entrants to the labor force. Such

persons are generally not eligible to collect unemployment

benefits and are, therefore, much less likely to register with

employment offices than the experienced unemployed.

Many unemployed women also do not register in Great

Britain. The method of adjustment of the British data by

age and sex is based, therefore, on the General Household

Surveys (GHS) which cover the labor force groups generally

excluded from registration statistics.

Figures on the labor force and unemployed were reported by age and sex in the 1971 GHS, but were not inflated to universe levels—i.e., levels representing the entire

country. In table C-4, all data shown are representative of

the entire country. Reported figures on employees, selfemployed, and registered unemployed have been augmented by adding the estimated number of unregistered unemployed. An estimate of the overcount in the reported

figures on employees has been subtracted. (See appendix B

for details.) The resulting adjusted civilian labor force,

broken down into its male and female components, was

then distributed by age according to the age-sex distribution of the civilian labor force (unadjusted to U.S. concepts) from the 1971 GHS. The GHS did not report data

for the age groups 15-19 and 20-24; instead, figures for age

Table C-3. Germany: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and sex, April 1968

(N um bers in thousands)

Total

Employment status 14 years

and over

15 years

and over

15 to 19

years

20 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over

Labor force

Both sexes................................................ 26,766 26,719 2,487 2,705 16,343 5,186

Less: Career military personnel1 

Less: Unpaid family workers

485 485 32 169 282 2

working less than 15 hours2 68 68 4 3 40 22

Adjusted civilian labor force .... 26,213 26,166 2,451 2,533 16,021 5,162

Male . . ................................................... 17,157 17,131 1,309 1,556 10,795 3,4 72

Less. Career military personnel1 

Less: Unpaid family workers

485 485 32 169 282 2

working less than 15 hours2 . . 11 11 2 1 4 4

Adjusted civilian labor force .... 16,661 16,635 1,275 1,386 10,509 3,466

Fem ale......................................................

Less unpaid family workers

9,609 9,588 1,178 1,149 5,548 1,715

working less than 15 hours2 . . 57 57 2 2 36 18

Adjusted civilian labor force . . . 9,552 9,531 1,176 1,147 5,512 1,697

Unemployed

Both sexes................................................ 412 382 94 36 171 81

M a le ......................................................... 229 213 47 18 92 56

Fem ale......................................................

Unemployment rate (percent)

183 169 47 18 79 25

Adjusted to U.S. concepts:

Both sexes......................................... 1.6 1.5 3.8 1.4 1.1 1.6

M ale................................................ 1.4 1.3 3.7 1.3 .9 1.6

F e m a le ................... ... 1.9 1.8 4.0 1.6 1.4 1.5

As published:

Both sexes ................................ ... 1.5 1.4 3.8 1.3 1.0 1.6

M ale...................................................... 1.3 1.2 3.6 1.2 .9 1.6

F e m a le ................................... 19 1.8 4.0 1.6 1.4 1.5

1 Age distribution derived from age distributions of labor force

induding and excluding career military personnel.

* Based on age-sex distribution of all unpaid family workers in

April 1968.

SOURCE: Hauptergebnisse der Arbeits-und Sozialstatistik 1968

(Bonn, Der Bundesminister Fur Arbeit und Sozialordnung), Statistiches Jahrbuch fur Die Bundesrepubiic Deutschland 1969 (Wiesbaden, Statisches Bundesamt, July 1969), and BLS adjustments.

NOTE: Because of bounding, subtotals may not add to totals.

150

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table C~4. Great Britain: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and sex, 1971

(N um bers in thousands)

E m p lo ym en t status

T o tal

15 years

and over

15 to 19

years

2 0 to 2 4

years

25 to 5 4

years

5 5 years

and over

Labor force

Both sexes:

Em ployees in e m p lo y m e n t............... 2 1 ,5 5 4 - __ — -

Plus: Self e m p lo y e d ...................... 1 ,8 4 8 — — — —

Plus: Registered u n em p lo yed 1 . 75 8 - - - -

Less: N et o v e r c o u n t...................... 2 9 5 — — — —

Plus: Unregistered unem plo yed . 157 - - - -

A djusted civilian labor fo rc e2 . . . 2 4 ,0 2 2 2 ,2 7 6 2,7 31 1 4 ,4 7 7 4 ,5 3 9

R ou nd ed ............................................ 2 4 ,0 2 0 2 ,2 8 0 2 ,7 3 0 1 4 ,4 8 0 4 ,5 4 0

Male:

Em ployees in e m p lo y m e n t............... 1 3 ,3 7 6 — — — _

Plus: S elf e m p lo y e d ...................... 1 ,4 7 7 — — — —

Plus: Registered u n em p lo yed 1 . 6 4 0 - - __ -

Less: N et o v e r c o u n t...................... 2 5 4 — — — —

Plus: Unregistered un em plo yed . -6 3 — - — -

A djusted civilian labor fo rc e2 . . . 1 5 ,1 7 6 1 ,2 1 4 1 ,6 6 9 9 ,2 5 7 3 ,0 3 5

Rounded ............................................ 1 5 ,1 8 0 1 ,2 1 0 1 ,6 7 0 9 ,2 6 0 3 ,0 4 0

Fem ale:

Em ployees in e m p lo y m e n t............... 8 ,1 7 8 - - - -

Plus: Self e m p lo y e d ...................... 371 — — _ —

Plus: Registered u n em p lo yed 1 . 119 - - - -

Less: N et o v e r c o u n t...................... 41 — — — —

Plus: Unregistered unem plo yed . 2 2 0 - - - -

A djusted civilian labor fo rc e2 . . . . 8 ,8 4 7 1 ,0 6 2 1 ,0 6 2 5 ,2 2 0 1 ,5 0 4

Rounded ................................................ 8 ,8 5 0 1 ,0 6 0 1 ,0 6 0 5 ,2 2 0 1 ,5 0 0

Unemployed

B oth sexes:

Registered un em p lo yed 1 .................. 75 8 — — — —

Plus: T e m p o rarily laid o f f.................. 11 - — — —

Plus: Unregistered un em plo yed . . 157 — — — —

A djusted un em p lo yed 2 ............................. 9 2 6 156 133 4 7 8 16 0

R o u n d e d ................................................... 9 3 0 160 130 4 8 0 16 0

Male:

Registered u n em p lo yed 1 ................... 6 4 0 - - - —

Plus: T e m p o rarily laid o ff . . . . 10 — — — —

Plus: Unregistered un em plo yed . -6 3 - — __ —

A djusted un em p lo yed 2 . ................... 58 7 88 8 2 2 8 8 129

R o u n d e d ................................................ 5 9 0 9 0 8 0 2 9 0 13 0

Fem ale:

Registered u n em p lo yed 1 .................. 119 - - — —

Plus: T e m p o rarily laid o ff . . . . 1 — — — —

Plus: Unregistered unem plo yed . 2 2 0 — — — —

A djusted un em p lo yed 2 ...................... 3 4 0 68 51 190 31

R o u n d e d ................................................ 3 4 0 70 5 0 190 3 0

Unemployment rate (percent)

Adjusted to U .S . concepts:

Both se xes................................................... ... 3 .9 7 .0 4.8 3.3 3 .5

M a l e ...............................................................\ 3.9 7.4 4 .8 3.1 4 .3

F e m a le ............................................................. 3 .8 6.6 4 .7 3 .6 2.0

1 Includes adult students. SOURCE: The General Household Survey: Introductory Report

2 Distributed by age according to the 1971 General Household (London, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Social Survey

Survey. Data for 15- to 19-year-olds and 20- to 24-year-olds were Division) and BLS adjustments,

estimated by utilizing the 1971 Population Census. The GHS reported data for 15- to 17-year-olds and 18- to 24-year-olds.

151

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
groups 15-17 and 18-24 were reported. The number of 18-

and 19-year-olds in the 18-24 category was estimated by

utilizing proportions of the labor force by age and sex

from the 1971 population census. For 1973 and 1974, no

breakdown of the 16-24 age group was made because of the

lack of relevant data. It should be noted that the lower age

limit for British statistics was raised from 15 to 16 in 1973.

The registered unemployed figures were adjusted to

U.S. concepts by sex by adding the unregistered unemployed

and persons on temporary layoff. The resulting figures, by

sex, were then distributed by age according to the age-sex

distribution of the unemployed (unadjusted to U.S. concepts) from the 1971 GHS, supplemented by the 1971

population census. Data on unemployment by age and sex

as measured by the population census (persons “out of

employment”) were used to estimate the number of unemployed 18- and 19-year-olds in the 18-24 age group

(table C-4).

Italy

Italian labor force data by age and sex could not be

reliably adjusted to U.S. concepts. Therefore, only published

age and sex breakdowns were shown for Italy in chapter 3.

It is not known how well these published breakdowns

approximate U.S. concepts. The figures exclude persons

who were actively seeking work but who did not report

themselves as unemployed. On the other hand, they include

a large number of persons who took no active steps to find

work in the past 30 days.

Sweden

The reported Swedish labor force includes career

military personnel. In addition, in 1968 the labor force

included 14- and 15-year-olds; in 1970 and subsequent

years 14- and 15-year-olds were excluded but persons 75

years old and over were also excluded. The age distribution

of the career military was based on a special survey conducted in Sweden in February 1964. Data on 14- and

15-year-olds for 1968 were provided by the National Central Bureau of Statistics in unpublished tabulations. For

those 75 years old and over, figures are published once a

year in the labor force survey. The Swedish unemployed

figures require only the age adjustments discussed above.

The resulting adjusted unemployment rates by age and sex

are virtually the same as the published rates (table C-5).

Table C-5. Sweden: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and sex, 1968

(N um bers in thousands)

E m p lo y m en t status

T o tal

16 to 19

years

2 0 to 2 4

years

2 5 to 5 4

years

5 5 years

and over

14 years

and over

16 years

and over

Labor force

Both s e x e s ................................................ 3 ,8 6 8 3 ,8 4 0 251 4 6 9 2 ,3 3 0 791

Less: Career m ilita ry personnel1 18 18 2 6 10 0

Adjusted civilian labor force . . 3 ,8 5 0 3 ,8 2 2 2 4 9 4 6 3 2 ,3 2 0 791

M a le .............................................................. 2 ,3 9 9 2 ,3 8 2 130 2 6 4 1 ,4 4 6 5 4 2

Less: Career m ilita ry personnel1 18 18 2 6 10 0

A djusted civilian labor force . . 2,381 2 ,3 6 3 128 2 5 8 1 ,4 3 6 5 4 2

F e m a l e ....................................................... 1 ,4 6 9 1,4 5 8 121 2 0 5 8 8 4 2 4 9

U nem p loyed

B oth s e x e s ................................................ 8 6 8 5 14 14 4 0 17

M a le .......................................................... . 5 4 5 4 7 8 26 14

F e m a l e ....................................................... 32 31 8 6 14 3

U n e m p lo ym en t rate (percent)

Adjusted to U .S . concepts:

B oth sexes ................................................ 2.2 2.2 5 .6 3 .0 1,7 2.1

M a le ................................................... ... 2.3 2.3 5.5 3.1 1.8 2 .6

F e m a l e ........................................ 2 .2 2.1 6 .6 2.9 1.6 1.2

As published:

B oth s e x e s ................................................ 2.2 2.2 5 .6 3 .0 1.7 2,1

M a le .................. ........................................... 2.3 2.2 5 .4 3 .0 1.7 2 .6

F e m a le ....................................................... 2.2 2.1 6 .6 2.9 1.6 1.2

1 Age distribu tion based on special survey conducted in February S O U R C E : The Labour Force Surveys, 1961-69 (S to ckh olm , Na1 9 6 4 . tiona! Central Bureau o f Statistics) and BUS adjustm ents.

152

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix D. Calculation of Labor Force Participation Rates

and Employment-Population Ratios

Participation rates

Labor force participation rates as shown in chapter 4 of this bulletin are defined as the proportion of the

civilian population of working age that is in the labor force.

The labor force used in these calculations is the civilian

labor force adjusted to U.S. concepts. Since participation

rates by sex were also needed, the adjusted labor force had

to be broken down into its male and female components.

This was done according to the procedures described in

appendix C on methods of adjustment by age and sex, except for Germany and Great Britain.

For Germany, age-sex adjustments, as described in

appendix C, were made to the April or May Microcensus

figures. The 1960-76 participation rate data, however, are

annual averages derived from annual estimates of the labor

force by sex. These figures are adjusted to U.S. concepts

on the basis of the Microcensus.

In the age-sex adjustment section for Great Britain,

only data from the British General Household Survey

which began in 1971 were considered. However, since participation rates were required for the entire 1960-76 period,

the 1971 survey was inadequate. Instead, figures on the

labor force by sex were adjusted to U.S. concepts by first

obtaining the published British figures, subtracting an estimated overcount, and adding the unregistered unemployed.

These adjustments are described in detail in the methods

section for Great Britain (appendix B). The overcount factor and the unregistered unemployed are originally derived

by sex, as explained in the methods section.

The population base for the participation rate calculations is defined as the civilian population of working age.

Such data are usually reported in labor force surveys. For

most countries, the Armed Forces had to be excluded from

the regularly published population figures. Working age was

defined so as to cover the same ages as the adjusted labor

force figures-e.g., persons age 16 and over in the United

States; age 15 and over in Germany, etc. Where population

figures were not available on this basis, estimates of working

age population had to be made. For Italy, working age

population data were not reported in the labor force survey.

Therefore, estimates of mid-year population as reported

to the OECD were used. The Armed Forces were subtracted

from these figures so that they would relate to the civilian

population. OECD population estimates were also used for

Germany, since annual rather than April data were used for

the labor force.

Employment-population ratios

The employment-population ratios shown in chapter 4 were obtained by dividing civilian employment by

the civilian population of working age. Civilian employment

adjusted to U.S. concepts was obtained by subtracting the

adjusted unemployed from the adjusted labor force for

each year. The civilian population of working age was obtained in the same way as for the participation rates described above. No breakdowns of employment ratios by

sex were made.

153

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix E. European Community Labor Force Surveys

The Statistical Office of the European Communities

has been working to promote comparability of employment

and unemployment statistics among member countries. In

October 1960, labor force surveys using common definitions were conducted in each of the six member countries—

Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the

Netherlands.1 The surveys were repeated annually from

1968 to 1971, but not all Community countries participated; Luxembourg did not take part in the 1968 survey,

and the Netherlands did not participate in the three following surveys. The 1968 to 1971 surveys were conducted in

the spring.

The survey was conducted again in the spring of 1973

in the six original member countries and in the United

Kingdom. In 1975, all member countries took part, including Ireland and Denmark. The survey was again conducted

in 1977 and will henceforth be conducted every two years.

Collection of data

For the 1960 and each subsequent survey, a standard

questionnaire and rules to be followed in collecting the data

were drawn up by the Statistical Office of the European

Communities. The sampling and visits to households were

carried out by the national statistical institutes who were

also responsible for sending the results to the Statistical

Office. The Statistical Office handled all the processing of

data.

Scope of survey

The survey covers all persons whose place of residence is in one of the member states of the Community

during the reference week. For technical reasons, it was not

1 Survey results may be found in the following publications of

the Statistical Office of the European Communities: Une enquete

par sondage sur les forces de travail dans les pays de le CEE en 1960,

Informations Statistiques 1963, Number 2; Population et forces de

travail en 1968, Statistiques Sociales 1969, Number 6; Population

et forces de travail en 1969, Statistiques Sociales 1970, Number 4;

Enquete par sondage sur les forces de travail en 1970, Statistiques

Sociales 1971, Number 2; Enquete par sondage sur les forces de travail en 1971, Statistiques Sociales 1972, Number 3;Population and

Employment, 1968-1972, Social Statistics 1973, Number 2; Labour

Force Sample Survey 1973, Social Statistics 1975, Number 1; and

Labour Force Sample Survey 1975, Eurostat, 1977. Beginning with

the publication Population and Employment, 1968-72 the descriptions and table headings appear in English as well as the other

languages of the Community.

possible to include collective households such as hostels,

boarding schools, hospitals, or workers’ lodgings in all countries. Therefore, the survey has been limited to private

households. Members of private households make up about

97 percent of the total population of the Community.

The 1960 survey was based on a sample of 1 percent;

for the subsequent surveys, the sample size varied each year

according to country (for example, 1968,0.5 percent in the

Netherlands and Belgium; 1 percent in Germany).

Comparability of historical series

According to the EC Statistical Office, a comparison

of the results of the 1960, 1968-71, 1973, and 1975 surveys must be made with caution. Random errors are a feature of all sample surveys and can, in certain cases, exceed

the magnitude of the variations from one year to another.

Also, although these surveys were synchronized in that

they all took place in the spring of each year (except in

1960), they were carried out over different periods in

the different countries and were spread over several weeks

in some countries. Finally, it has been necessary to revise

figures for various reasons after publication of the first results. Thus, the final French results for 1968 have been

published along with the 1969 results and the 1969 figures

for Belgium have been revised in the 1970 publication.

The results of the 1960 survey, as published in 1963,

cannot be considered comparable with those of the subsequent surveys. Nevertheless, the Statistical Office has

attempted to bring the different surveys into line as far as

possible by using unpublished working documents in Number 2/1973 of the Social Statistics series.

Following certain improvements introduced in the

1973 survey, notably concerning the distinction between

the “usual” situation with regard to economic activity and

the actual situation in the reference week, strict comparisons between the 1973 and 1975 results and those of previous surveys are not always possible.

Definitions of the labor force

The definitions used in the European Community surveys are essentially based on ILO definitions. However, a

rigorous application of the international definitions was not

possible because of the necessity of avoiding too detailed a

survey requiring complicated computer calculations.

154

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The use of definitions common to all the Community

countries means that the results may not be the same as

those used nationally. As the Statistical Office tries to

achieve comparable results, these results do not always

agree with data from the same surveys processed according

to national definitions.

The labor force in the Community surveys is defined

as all persons age 14 and over whose normal residence is

in a private household in one of the Community countries

participating in the survey and who, during the reference

week, was employed or unemployed according to the following definitions.

Employed. Employed persons comprise all persons age 14

or over who:

1. Have carried out remunerative work as their main oc­ cupation during the reference week; 2. are normally employed, but who, during the course of the reference week, were not at work because of illness, accident, holiday, strike, or other circum­ stances. People who have not worked because of tech­ nical breakdowns or bad weather are also included in this group. 3. carry out unpaid work assisting in a family business or farm as long as this work occupies more than 14 hours per week.

Specifically excluded from the employed are:

1. Persons who temporarily or for an unlimited period have no work and are not paid during the reference week; 2. persons without paid employment and who have neither a farm nor any other business, but who have taken steps to start a new job, farm, or business at a later date; 3. unpaid family workers who have worked less than 15 hours in the reference week; 4. military conscripts (career military personnel are in­ cluded in the employed).

Unemployed. Unemployed persons comprise all those who

have declared themselves to be unemployed and who fall

into one of the following categories: 123

1. Employable workers who were unemployed and seek­ ing paid work during the reference week because their employment contract had come to an end or had

been temporarily suspended; 2. persons with no previous employment, or whose last employment was not that of a paid worker (former employers, etc.), or who had ceased working for a period of time, and who, during the reference week, were capable of working and seeking paid employment ; 3. persons without work and capable of working im­ mediately who had made arrangements to start a new

job at a later date;

4. people laid off temporarily or for an indefinite period without pay.

Inactive population. This covers all persons who were under

14 years of age or who were 14 years old or older but could

not be considered either employed or unemployed under

the above definitions. The inactive population includes persons who declare themselves to be unemployed, but who

are not seeking paid employment—for example, persons

making arrangements to set themselves up in business.

Family workers who have declared that they are employed but have only worked between 1 and 14 hours during the reference week are also part of the inactive population. Also, inactive persons can be in the process of seeking employment (students looking for a first job, for example) or have a part-time job (a housewife working for

other households, for example).

Differences between European Community and

U.S. definitions

The European Community surveys differ from the

U.S. labor force survey with respect to age limits, classification of military personnel, and with regard to the

“inactive population” as defined by the European Community. The EC surveys use a lower age limit of 14,

whereas the U.S. surveys use age 16 as the lower limit.

Career military personnel are included in the labor force

as defined by the EC and excluded in the United States.

Some persons in the EC’s “inactive population” would

be regarded as in the U.S. labor force, either as employed

or unemployed. Thus, persons who do not declare in the

EC survey that they have a “main occupation” or that

they are “unemployed” are not classified in the labor force

even if they are performing some part-time work or are seeking work. This is similar to the procedure in the French

labor force survey in which work seekers are classified

as “unemployed” or “marginally unemployed.” The concept of “marginally unemployed’" in the French survey

corresponds closely to the category “inactive workseekers”

in the EC survey.

European Community survey results

The EC surveys provide a wealth of comparative

data, including data on labor force, employment, and unemployment by age and sex. Data on activity rates, parttime workers, sectoral employment, professional and territorial mobility, hours of work, and methods and duration

of workseeking are included. There is also a great deal of

information broken down by region in each country. Table

E-l shows some of the data obtained from the 1973 labor

force survey.

155

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table E-1. Population of the European Community by type of activity, spring 1973

(Thousands)

T y p e o f activity Belgium France G erm any Ita ly Luxem bou rg Netherlands

U n ited

Kingdom

1. Persons w ith a j o b ...................... ... 3 ,5 1 6 2 0 ,1 9 4 2 5 ,5 8 4 1 7 ,0 1 9 134 4 ,3 0 6 2 3 ,6 8 3

W ith 2 or m ore jo b s............... ... . 8 5 (M 6 1 7 461 5 106 4 4 2

Looking fo r an oth er jo b . . . . 82 53 9 (M 81 7 1 137 7 9 0

2. Persons w h o have declared

themselves to be un em plo yed . . 59 3 7 4 133 71 7 1 8 2 5 1 5

Looking fo r a first j o b ............... 12 6 4 26 451 (M 10 26

3. T o tal labor force (1 + 2 ) . . . . . 3 ,5 7 5 2 0 ,5 6 8 2 5 ,7 1 7 1 7 ,7 3 6 135 4 ,3 8 8 2 4 ,1 9 8

4. Inactive persons ............................. 3 ,8 8 4 17,921 2 2 ,4 1 8 2 3 .8 4 9 146 5 ,3 4 0 1 8 ,2 0 9

W ith an occasional jo b . . . . . 39 629 731 1 ,1 4 9 3 3 1 5 3 8 4

Lo oking fo r a j o b .......................... 17 3 6 8 841 1 6 5 3 9 4

5. Persons less than 14 years old . . 2 ,0 8 7 1 0 ,8 7 8 1 2 ,4 4 2 1 1 ,8 6 6 6 6 2 ,8 0 2 1 1 ,6 1 0

6. T o ta l p o p u latio n (3 + 4 + 5 ) .... 9 ,5 4 6 4 9 ,3 6 6 6 0 ,5 7 7 53 ,451 347 1 2 ,5 3 0 5 4 ,0 1 7

^ N o t available. SOURCE: Statistical Office of the European Communities, Social Statistics, Number 1,1975.

Digitized for FRASER 

156

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix F. Unemployment Rates on a Total Labor Force Basis

Table F-1. Total labor force (including Armed Forces) and unemployment rates, adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76

U nited G reat

Y ear States Canada A ustralia Japan France G erm any B ritain

------------- — i

Ita ly

i_____ ________

Sweden

T o tai Labor Force (Thousands)

19 5 9 .... 70 ,921 6 ,3 3 4 (M 4 3 ,5 3 0 1 9 ,8 9 0 2 6 ,0 8 0 2 3 ,7 8 0 2 2 ,1 6 0 (M

19 6 0 .... 7 2 ,1 4 2 6,5 01 (M 4 4 ,3 3 0 1 9 ,9 2 0 2 6 ,2 6 0 2 3 ,9 2 0 2 1 ,8 9 0 (M

1961 .... 73,031 6 ,6 1 2 (») 4 4 ,8 2 0 1 9 ,8 9 0 2 6 ,5 3 0 2 4 ,1 9 0 2 1 ,8 5 0 3 ,6 4 4

1 9 62 .... 7 3 ,4 4 2 6 ,7 1 0 (M 4 5 ,2 6 0 1 9 ,9 6 0 2 6 ,6 2 0 2 4 ,5 1 0 2 1 ,6 9 0 3 ,7 2 8

1963 .... 74 ,571 6 ,8 3 8 (M 4 5 ,6 4 0 2 0 ,0 3 0 2 6 ,7 2 0 2 4 ,7 2 0 2 1 ,2 3 0 3 ,7 9 9

1 9 64 .... 7 5 ,8 3 0 7 ,0 1 7 4,6 1 1 4 6 ,2 6 0 2 0 ,3 0 0 2 6 ,7 3 0 2 4 ,8 4 0 2 1 ,1 7 0 3 ,7 5 9

1 9 6 5 .... 7 7 ,1 7 8 7 ,2 1 7 4 ,7 4 5 4 7 ,0 0 0 2 0 ,3 2 0 2 6 ,8 5 0 2 4 ,9 8 0 2 0 ,8 2 0 3 ,7 8 7

19 6 6 .... 7 8 ,8 9 3 7,601 4,9 01 4 8 ,0 8 0 2 0 ,5 6 0 2 6 ,7 7 0 2 5 ,0 7 0 2 0 ,4 8 0 3,841

19 67 .... 8 0 ,7 9 3 7 ,8 5 4 5 ,0 3 5 4 9 ,0 4 0 2 0 ,6 6 0 2 6 ,2 2 0 2 5 ,0 2 0 2 0 ,6 2 0 3 ,8 1 8

19 6 8 .... 8 2 ,2 7 2 8 ,0 5 2 5,151 4 9 ,9 2 0 2 0 ,9 5 0 2 6 ,2 6 0 2 4 ,8 6 0 2 0 ,5 6 0 3 ,8 6 7

19 6 9 .... 8 4 ,2 3 9 8 ,2 9 2 5 ,2 9 7 5 0 ,3 8 0 2 1 ,2 2 0 2 6 ,5 2 0 2 4 ,7 8 0 2 0 ,3 5 0 3 ,8 8 0

1 9 7 0 .... 8 5 ,9 0 3 8,4 91 5 ,4 6 5 5 0 ,9 7 0 2 1 ,5 4 0 2 6 ,7 9 0 2 4 ,6 4 0 2 0 ,3 3 0 3 ,9 5 3

1971 .... 8 6 ,9 2 9 8 ,7 3 2 5 ,5 6 9 5 1 ,3 5 0 2 1 ,7 7 0 2 6 ,8 8 0 2 4 ,3 9 0 2 0 ,2 9 0 4 ,0 0 0

1 9 7 2 .... 88 ,9 9 1 9 ,0 0 4 5 ,6 7 0 5 1 ,5 5 0 2 1 ,9 9 0 2 6 ,8 1 0 2 4 ,6 1 0 2 0 ,0 0 0 4 ,0 0 8

19 7 3 .... 9 1 ,0 4 0 9 ,4 0 4 5 ,7 9 6 5 2 ,8 2 0 2 2 ,2 1 0 2 6 ,8 7 0 2 4 ,8 9 0 2 0 ,1 4 0 4 ,0 1 2

1 9 7 4 .... 9 3 ,2 4 0 9 ,7 8 7 5 ,9 3 7 5 2 ,6 8 0 2 2 ,5 5 0 2 6 ,6 1 0 2 4 ,8 6 0 2 0 .4 1 0 4 ,0 7 8

1 9 7 5 .... 9 4 ,7 9 3 1 0 ,1 3 9 6 ,0 5 5 5 2 ,7 7 0 2 2 ,6 2 0 2 6 ,1 6 0 2 2 5 ,1 6 0 2 0 ,6 0 0 4,161

1 9 7 6 .... 9 6 ,9 1 7 1 0 ,3 8 8 6 ,1 4 0 5 3 ,3 4 0 2 2 ,7 6 0 2 5 ,9 3 0 2 2 5 ,4 4 0 2 0 ,8 2 0 4 ,1 8 5

U n e m p lo ym en t R ate (Percent)

1 9 5 9 .... 5.3 5.9 ( M 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.8 4.9 ( M

1 9 6 0 .... 5.3 6.8 (! ! 1.7 1.8 1.1 2. 2 3. 7 ( M

1961 . . . . 6 .4 7.0 (M 1.5 1.5 .6 1.9 3 .2 1.4

1 9 6 2 . . . . 5.3 5 .8 (M 1.3 1.4 .6 2.8 2.7 1 A

1 9 6 3 . . . . 5.5 5 .4 I 1 ) 1.3 1.3 .4 3.4 2.3 1.7

1 9 6 4 . . . . 5.0 4 .6 1.4 1.2 1.4 .4 2 .5 2.6 1.5

1 9 6 5 . . . . 4 .4 3 .9 1.3 1.3 1.5 .3 2.1 3 .4 1.2

1 9 6 6 . . . . 3 .6 3.3 1.5 1.4 1.8 .3 2.2 3 .7 1.5

1 9 6 7 . . . . 3 .7 3 .8 1 6 1.3 1.9 1.3 3.3 3.3 2.1

1 9 6 8 . . . . 3 .4 4 .5 1.5 1.2 2.5 1.4 3 .2 3.3 2.2

1 9 6 9 . . . . 3 .4 4 .4 1.5 1.1 2.3 .9 3.0 3 .2 1.9

1 9 7 0 . . . . 4 .8 5 .6 1.4 1.2 2.5 .8 3 .0 3 .0 1.5

1971 . . . . 5.7 6 .2 1.6 1.2 2.7 .8 3 .8 3 .0 2.5

1 9 7 2 . . . . 5.4 6 .2 2.2 1.4 2.8 .8 4.1 3 .5 2.7

19 7 3 . . . . 4 .7 5 .5 1.9 1.3 2.6 .8 3.1 3.3 2.4

1 9 7 4 . . . . 5 .4 5.3 2.2 1.4 2.9 1.7 2.8 2.7 2.0

1 9 7 5 . . . . 8.3 6 .9 4 .4 1.9 4.1 3 .6 2 4 .6 3.2 1.6

1 9 7 6 . . . . 7.5 7.1 4.4 2.0 4 .5 3 .5 26.3 | 3 .5 1.6

1 N o t available. ^P relim in ary estim ate based on incom plete data.

Digitized for FRASER 

157

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
B ib lio g rap h y

General

Barkin, Solomon. Changing Profile o f European Manpower

Policies. Amherst, University of Massachusetts, 1973.

Bauer, David. Factors Moderating Unemployment Abroad.

Studies in Business Economics, No. 113. New York, National Industrial Conference Board, 1970.

Bohning, W. R. “Immigration Policies of Western European

Countries,” International Migration Review, Summer

1974, pp. 155-63.

Bohning, W.R., and Maillat, D. The Effects o f the Employment o f Foreign Workers. Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1974.

Bouscaren, Anthony T. European Economic Community

Migrations. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1969.

Braun, Kurt. “European Limitations on Employee Dismissal,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1965, pp. 67-68.

Chapman, Jane R. Employment Related Programs with Impact on Women in Selected Western Countries. Washington, American Political Science Association, 1973.

Congressional Budget Office. Report o f Congressional Budget Office Conference on the Teenage Unemployment

Problem: What are the Options? Washington, Government Printing Office, October 14, 1976.

Cook, Alice H. The Working Mother, A Survey o f Problems

and Programs in Nine Countries. Ithaca, Cornell University, 3975.

Darling, Martha. The Role o f Women in the Economy.

Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development. 1977.

“Effects of Recession on Immigrant Labour ” OECD Observer, June 1972, pp, 15-18.

European Economic Community. Les Problems de Main

d ’oeuvre dans la Ccmmunaute 1971. Luxembourg, EEC,

1971.

Flaii.'gan, Robert J. A Study o f International Differences

in Phillips Curves. Berkeley, University of California

Press, 1970.

____“The U.S. Phillips Curve and International Unemployment Rate Differentials,” American

Economic Review, March 1973, pp. 114-31.

Galenson, Marjorie. Women and Work: An International

Comparison. Ithaca, Cornell University, 1973.

Gavett, Thomas W. “Youth Unemployment and Minimum

Wages,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1970, pp. 3-12.

Gordon, Margaret S. The Comparative Experience with Retraining Programs in the United States and Europe.

Berkeley, University of California, 1966.

Hansen, Gary B., and others. “Manpower Policies: Lessons

for U.S. From Foreign Experience,” Labor Law Journal,

August 1970, pp. 523-57.

Henle, Peter. Work Sharing as an Alternative to Layoffs.

Washington, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, July 19,1976.

Howenstine, E. Jay. Compensatory Employment Programmes: An International Comparison o f Their Role in

Economic Stabilization and Growth. Paris, Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1969.

____________ . “Programs for Providing Winter Jobs in

Construction,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1971,

pp. 24-32.

Hughes, Barry. “Supply Constraints and Short-Term Employment Functions: A Comment,” The Review o f Economics and Statistics, No. 4, 1971, pp. 393-97.

Hume, Ian M. “Migrant Workers in Europe,” Finance and

Development, March 1973, pp. 2-6.

“Illegal Immigrants,” The Economist, November 13,1976,

p. 68.

International Labour Office. Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Report IV. Geneva, ILO, 1954.

____________— . The International Standardization o f

Labour Statistics, Studies and Reports. New Series No.

53, Geneva, ILO, 1959.

_______________ Labour Force 1950-2000, Volumes IV

and V. Geneva, ILO, 1977.

______________ . Manpower Aspects o f Recent Economic

Developments in Europe. Geneva, ILO, 1969.

......................- ..- . Measurement o f Underemployment:

Concepts and Methods. Geneva, ILO, 1966.

_.—____________ Social and Labour Bulletin. Quarterly.

158

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
________________ Social Security for the Unemployed.

Geneva, ILO, 1976.

______ _________ . Unemployment Protection Under Social

Security-An Appraisal o f the Present Situation and the

Role o f the ILO. Geneva, ILO, 1975.

___. Womenpower. Geneva, ILO, 1975.

“International Unemployment Statistics,” Department o f

Employment Gazette (Great Britain), July 1976, pp.

710-14.

Jenkins, David. “Job Security Measures Growing Throughout Europe,” World o f Work Report, July 1976, p. 3.

Kayser, Bernard. Cyclically Determined Homeward Flows

o f Migrant Workers. Paris, Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development, 1972.

Lai, Deepak. Unemployment and Wage Inflation in Industrial Economies. Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1977.

Levitan, Sar A., and Belous, Richard S. “Work-sharing Initiatives at Home and Abroad,” Monthly Labor Review,

September 1977, pp. 16-20.

Lyon-Caen, Gerard. “Les Travailleurs Etrangers-Etude

Comparative,” Droit Social, Janvier 1975, pp. 1-16.

Maddison, Angus. Economic Growth in the West. London,

George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1964. Appendixes C, D,

E,and F.

McCarthy, James E. “Employment and Inflation in Major

Industrial Countries,” The Conference Board Worldbusiness Perspectives, August 1975.

“Migrants: Unemployed, They Stay On,” ILO Information,

No. 1, 1976, p. 11.

Mincer, Jacob. “Labor Force Participation and Unemployment: A Review of Recent Evidence,” in R. A. Gordon

and M. S, Gordon, ed., Prosperity and Employment.

New York, Wiley and Sons, 1966.

Mittelstadt, Axel. “Unemployment Benefits and Related

Payments in Seven Major Countries,” OECD Economic

Outlook, July 1975, pp. 3-22,

Moy, Joy anna, and Sorrentino, Constance. “An Analysis of

Unemployment in Nine Industrial Countries,” Monthly

Labor Review, April 1977, pp. 12-24.

---------------------- . “Unemployment in Nine Industrial Nations, 1973-75,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1975,

pp. 9-18.

Myers, Robert J. “International Comparisons of Unemployment,” The Banker, November 1975, pp. 1257-

62.

Myers, Robert J., and Chandler, John H. “International

Comparisons of Unemployment,” Monthly Labor

Review, August 1962, pp. 857-64.

National Commission for Manpower Policy. Reexamining

European Manpower Policies, Special Report No. 10.

Washington, August 1976.

_________________ School to Work: Improving the Transition. Washington, 1976.

Neef, Arthur F. “International Unemployment Rates,

1960-64,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1965, pp. 256-

59.

Neef, Arthur F., and Holland, Rosa A. “Comparative Unemployment Rates 1964-66,” Monthly Labor Review,

April 1967, pp. 18-20.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Demographic Trends, 1970-1985 in OECD Member

Countries. Paris, OECD, 1974.

------------------------- Demographic Trends, Supplement Country

Reports. Paris, OECD, 1976.

_________________ Economic Outlook. Semiannually.

----------------------- - Educational Statistics Yearbook, Volumes I and II. Paris, OECD, 1975.

_________________ Inflation: The Present Problem. Paris,

OECD, 1970.

------------------------ International Migration o f ManpowerA Bibliography. Paris, OECD, 1969.

- _____________ Labour Force Statistics. Yearbooks and

quarterly supplements.

— _____________Main Economic Indicators. Monthly.

_________________ Manpower Problems. Paris, OECD, 1974.

_______ ________ . Proposals for the Future Development

o f Manpower Statistics. Paris, OECD, 1971.

159

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-------------------------Results o f an Inquiry on Demographic

Trends. Paris, OECD, May 1973.

________________ Revenue Statistics o f OECD Member

Countries 1965-1972. Paris, OECD, 1975.

_________________SOPEMI-Continuous Reporting System

on Migration, 1976 Report. Paris, OECD, 1976.

_________________ The Entry o f Young People into Working Life. Paris, OECD, 1977.

_________________The Impact o f the 1974-75 Recession on

the Employment o f Women. Paris, OECD, 1977.

_________________Unemployment Compensation and Related Employment Policy Measures. Paris, OECD, forthcoming.

Perlmutter, James. “Migrant Workers in Western Europe,”

Labor Developments Abroad, April-May 1971, pp. 1-10.

President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics. Measuring Employment and

Unemployment. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1962. Appendix A.

Reder, Melvin W. International Differences in Unemployment Rates o f New Entrants to the Labor Force. Stanford, Stanford University, 1970.

Reubens, Beatrice G. Bridges to Work: International Comparison o f Transition Services. New York, Universe

Books, 1977.

________________ “Foreign Experience,” in Report o f

Congressional Budget Office Conference on the Teenage

Unemployment Problem: What are the Options? Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, October 14,

1976.

______________ _ “Manpower Policy in Western Europe,”

Manpower, November 1972, pp. 16-23.

______________ _ Policies for Apprenticeship. Study prepared for the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development, 1977, unpublished.

_______________ _ The Hard-to-Employ: European Programs. New York, Columbia University Press, 1970.

Sinfield, Adrian. The Long-Term Unemployed. Paris,

OECD, 1968.

“Slamming the Door on Europe’s Guest Workers,” The

Economist, August 9,1975, p. 24.

Sorrentino, Constance. “Comparing Employment Shifts in

10 Industrialized Countries,” Monthly Labor Review,

October 1971, pp. 3-11.

--------------------- . “Unemployment Compensation in 8 Nations,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1976, pp. 18-24.

----------------------- “Unemployment in Nine Industrialized

Countries,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1972, pp.

29-33.

------------ --------- - “Unemployment in the United States

and Seven Foreign Countries,” Monthly Labor Review,

September 1970, pp, 12-23.

Sorrentino, Constance, and Moy, Joyanna. “Unemployment in the United States and Eight Foreign Countries,”

Monthly Labor Review, January 1974, pp. 47-52.

Spitaller, Erich. ‘Trices and Unemployment in Selected Industrial Countries,” International Monetary Fund Staff

Papers, November 1971, pp. 528-69.

Statistical Office of the European Communities. Enquete

Par Sondage Sur Les Forces de Travail en 1970. Statistiques Sociales 1971, No. 2.

_________________Enquete Par Sondage Sur Les Forces de

Travail en 1971. Statistiques Sociales 1972, No 3.

—---------------------Population et Forces de Travail en 1968.

Statistiques Sociales 1969, No. 6.

_________________ Population et Forces de Travail en 1969.

Statistiques Sociales 1970, No. 4.

_________________Une Enquete Par Sondage Sur Les

Forces de Travail Dans Les Pays de la CEE en 1960. Information Statistiques 1963, No. 2.

“Statistics of Unemployment Among Workers’ Organizations,” International Labour Review, January 1921,

pp. 115-20.

Ulman, Lloyd. “Wage-Price Policies-Lessons From

Abroad,” Industrial Relations, May 1969, pp. 195-213.

“Up-To-Date Information on Migration through ‘SOPEMI’,”

OECD Observer, February 1974, pp. 3940.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social

Security Administration. Social Security Programs

Throughout the World, 1975, Research Report No. 48,

1976.

160

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. Department of Labor and Japanese Ministry of Labor.

The Role and Status of Women Workers in the United

States and Japan. A Joint United States-Japan Study.

Washington, Government Printing Office, 1976.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Transition From School to Work in Selected Countries.

Washington, Government Printing Office, 1969.

_________________Youth Unemployment and Minimum

Wages. BLS Bulletin 1657,1970.

U.S, Department of Labor, Manpower Administration.

Manpower Policy and Programs in Five Western European Countries: France, Great Britain, the Netherlands,

Sweden, and West Germany. Manpower Research Bulletin No. 11, July 1966.

Werner, Heinz. “Freizugigkeit der Arbeitskrafte und die

Wanderungsbewegungen in den Landem der Europaischen Gemeinschaft,” Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung, No. 4/1973, pp. 326-71.

“When Enough Will be Enough,” The Economist, August

25,1973, pp. 49-50.

Wittrock, Jan. Reducing Seasonal Unemployment in the

Construction Industry. Paris, Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development, 1967.

Yemin, Edward. “Job Security: Influence of ILO Standards

and Recent Trends,” International Labour Review,

February 1976, pp. 17-33.

Zeisel, Joseph S. “Comparison of British and U.S. Unemployment Rates,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1962,

pp. 489-501.

_ _ _ _ _ . The Structure of Unemployment at Full

Employment in Great Britain and the United States.

Ann Arbor, University Microfilms.

United States

Bednarzik, Robert W. ‘The Plunge of Employment During

the Recent Recession,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1975, pp. 3-10.

Bednarzik, Robert W., and St. Marie, Stephen. “Employment and Unemployment in 1976,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1977, pp. 3-13.

Bradshaw, Thomas F., and School, Janet L. “Workers on

Layoff: A Comparison of Two Data Series,” Monthly

Labor Review, November 1976, pp. 29-33.

Bregger, John E. “Establishment of a New Employment

Statistics Review Commission,” Monthly Labor Review,

March 1977, pp. 14-20.

______________ _ “Unemployment Statistics and What

They Mean,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1971,

pp. 22-29.

Briggs, Vernon M., Jr. “Mexican Workers in the United

States Labor Market: A Contemporary Dilemma,”

International Labour Review, November 1975, pp.351-

68.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Characteristics o f Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, July 1, 1975. BLS Bulletin 1957,1977.

_________________ Concepts and Methods Used in Manpower Statistics from the Current Population Survey.

BLS Report 313,1967.

_________________Concepts and Methods Used in Labor

Force Statistics Derived from the Current Population

Survey. BLS Report 463,1976.

________________ _ Directory o f Labor Force Studies Based

on the Current Population Survey. BLS Report 456,

1976.

_________________Employment and Earnings. Monthly.

_________________ How the Government Measures Unemployment. BLS Report 505,1977.

_________________ Labor Force and Unemployment. BLS

Report 486,1976.

_________________Some Social Aspects of Unemployment.

BLS Report 469, 1975.

______________— . Unemployment: Measurement Problems

and Recent Trends. BLS Report 445, 1975.

Bureau of the Census. The Current Population Survey-A

Report on Methodology. Bureau of the Census Technical

Paper No. 7,1963.

_________________The X -ll Variant o f the Census Method

II Seasonal Adjustment Program. Bureau of the Census

Technical Paper No. 15 (1967 revision), 1967.

Congressional Budget Office. Temporary Measures to Stimulate Employment: An Evaluation o f Some Alternatives,

September 2,1975 (Revised September 26,1975).

Digitized for FRASER 

161

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dernburg, Thomas, and Strand, Kenneth. “Hidden Unemployment 1953-62: A Quantitative Analysis by Age and

Sex,” American Economic Review, March 1966, pp. 71-

95.

Early, John F. “Effects of the Energy Crisis on Employment,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1974, pp. 8-16.

Feldstein, Martin S. Lowering the Permanent Rate o f Unemployment. Washington, D.C., Government Printing

Office, 1973.

_______________“The Economics of the New Unemployment,” Public Interest, Fall 1973, pp. 34 2 .

------------------- “Unemployment Insurance: Time for

Reform,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1975,

pp. 51-61.

Flaim, Paul O. “Employment and Unemployment During

the First Half of 1974,” Monthly Labor Review, August

1974, pp. 3-7.

Flaim, Paul O., and Schwab, P. M. “Changes in Employment and Unemployment in 1910,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1971, pp. 12-19.

Fullerton, Howard N., and Flaim, Paul O. “New Labor

Force Projections to 1990,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1976, pp. 3-13.

Garfinkle, Stuart H. “The Outcome of a Spell of Unemployment,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1977, pp.

54-57.

Gellner, Christopher G. “A 25-year Look at Employment as

Measured by Two Surveys,” Monthly Labor Review,

July 1973, pp. 14-23.

Grubel, H. G,, and Maki, D. R. “The Effects of Unemployment Benefits on U.S, Unemployment Rates,” Canada,

Simon Fraser University, mimeo, August 1974.

“Illegal Alien Study Urges Rethinking on Immigration,”

The Washington Post, January 9,1977, p. A-l.

Katz, Arnold. “Schooling, Age, and Length of Unemployment,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July

1974, pp. 597-605.

Killingsworth, Charles C. “Manpower Evaluations: Vulnerable but Useful,” Monthly Labor Review, April

1975, pp. 48-51.

Levitan, Sar A., and Taggart, Robert. “The Emergency Employment Act: An Interim Assessment,”Monthly Labor

Review, June 1972, pp. 3-11.

Lovati, Jean M. “The Unemployment Rate as an Economic

Indicator,” Federal Reserve Bank o f St. Louis, September

1976, pp. 2-9.

Magnum, Garth L., and Walsh, John. “A Decade of Manpower Training,”Manpower, April 1973, pp. 20-26.

Marston, Stephen T. “Impact of Unemployment Insurance

on Job Search,”Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,

No. 1,1975, pp. 13-60.

Myers, Robert J., and Swerdloff, Sol. “Seasonality and Construction,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1967,

pp. 1-8.

National Center for Education Statistics. National Longitudinal Study o f the High School Class o f 1972. Data

File Users Manual. Washington, Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare, July 1976.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Manpower Policy and Programmes in the United States.

Paris, OECD, 1964.

Patten, Thomas H., Jr. Manpower Planning and the Development o f Human Resources. New York, John Wiley and

Sons, 1971.

Perry, George L. “Changing Labor Markets and Inflation,”

Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, No. 3, 1970,

pp. 411-48.

Phelps, Edmund S. “Economic Policy and Unemployment

in the 1960’s,” The Public Interest, Winter 1974, pp.

30-46.

President of the United States. Employment and Training

Report o f the President. Annually from 1976.

________________.Manpower Report o f the President.

Annually until 1975.

President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics. Measuring Employment and Unemployment. Washington, Government Printing Office,

1962.

Digitized for FRASER 

162

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Reynolds, James J. “Seasonal Unemployment in the Construction Industry,'’ Hearings before the Select Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education

and Labor, House of Representatives, 90th Congress,

Second Session, on HR 15990, July 15, 1968.

Schweitzer, Stuart O., and Smith, Ralph E. “The Persistence of the Discouraged Worker Effect,” Industrial

and Labor Relations Review. January 1974, pp. 249-

60.

Seidman, Laurence S. The Design o f Federal Employment

Programs: An Economic Analysis. Berkeley, University

of California, 1974.

Shiskin, Julius. “Employment and Unemployment: The

Doughnut or the Hole?” Monthly Labor Review, February 1976, pp. 3-10.

Shiskin, Julius, and Stein, Robert L. “Problems in Measuring Unemployment,” Monthly Labor Review, August

1975, pp. 3-10.

Smith, Ralph E., and Vanski, Jean E. “Recent Performance

of Unemployment as an Indicator of Labor Market Conditions,” Journal o f Economics and Business, Fall 1976,

pp. 78-81.

St. Marie, Stephen M., and Bednarzik, Robert W. “Employment and Unemployment During 1915” Monthly Labor

Review, February 1976, pp. 11-20,

Stein, Robert L. “New Definitions for Employment and

Unemployment,” Employment and Earnings, February

1967, pp. 9-13.

—— ----—-------- . “Work History, Attitudes, and Income

of the Unemployed,” Monthly Labor Review, December

1963, pp. 1405-13.

Telia, Alfred. “The Relation of Labor Force to Employment,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, April

1974, pp. 454-69.

Thurow, Lester C. “The Role of Manpower Policy in

Achieving Aggregative Goals,” in R. A. Gordon, ed.,

Toward A Manpower Policy’. New York, Wiley and Sons,

1967, Chapter 4.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public

Welfare. Unemployment and the Energy Crisis, 1974.

Joint Hearings, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, February

14,1974.

Werneke, Diane. “Job Creation Programmes: The United

States Experience,” International Labour Review,

August 1976, pp. 43-59.

Young, Anne M. “Employment of School Age Youth,”

Monthly Labor Review, September 1970, pp. 4-11.

_______________ “Students, Graduates, and Dropouts in

the Labor Market, October 1975,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1976, pp. 3741.

Canada

Bureau of Statistics. Facts About the Unemployed, 1960-

71. Ottawa, Information Canada, 197 L

Cook, P.A., and others. Economic Impact o f Selected Government Programs Directed Toward the Labour Market.

Ottawa, Economic Council of Canada, 1976.

Denton, Frank T. The Growth o f Manpower in Canada.

Ottawa, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1970.

_______________ .The Short-Run Dynamics o f the Canadian Labor Market. Ottawa, Economic Council of

Canada, 1976.

Denton, Frank, and Ostry, Sylvia. An Analysis o f Post-War

Unemployment. Economic Council of Canada, Staff

Study No. 3, Ottawa, Queen’s Printer, 1964.

Department of Labour. Changing Patterns in Women’s Employment. Ottawa, Women’s Bureau, 1966.

_________ ____________ Unemployment Insurance in the

70’s. Ottawa, Queen’s Printer, 1970.

______________________ Women at Work in Canada. Ottawa, Queen’s Printer, 1964.

_______________ _____. Women in the Labour Force 1970,

Facts and Figures. Ottawa, Department of Labour,

1971.

Department of Manpower and Immigration. Notes on Employment and Unemployment. Ottawa, Department of

Manpower and Immigration, 1971.

Economic Council of Canada. Manpower in Construction.

Ottawa, Information Canada, 1975.

_________ _____People and Jobs-A Study o f the Canadian Labour Market. Ottawa, Information Canada, 1976.

163

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
______ _ . Toward More Stable Growth in Construction. Ottawa, Information Canada, 1974.

Green, C., and Cousineau, J. M. Unemployment in Canada:

The Impact o f Unemployment Insurance. Ottawa, Economic Council of Canada, 1976.

Grubel, H. G., Maki, D. R., and Sax, S. “Real and Insurance-Induced Unemployment in Canada,” Canadian

Journal o f Economics, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 174-91.

Kaliski, S. F. “Structural Unemployment in Canada:

Towards a Definition of Geographic Dimension,”

Canadian Journal o f Economics, August 1968, pp.

551-65.

Lando, Mordechai E. The Sex Differential in Canadian

Unemployment Data. Center for Naval Analyses, Professional Paper No. 2, January 9,1970.

Newton, Keith. “Interpreting National Unemployment

Rates,” Industrial Relations Journal, Winter 1974,

pp. 46-58.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Manpower Policy and Programmes in Canada. Paris,

OECD, 1966.

Ostry, Sylvia. The Female Worker in Canada. Ottawa, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1968.

.___________________Unemployment in Canada. Ottawa,

Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1968.

Plasse, Leonel. Labour Force Activities and Characteristics

o f Students. Statistics Canada Research Paper Number

14, July 1977.

Spencer, Byron G., and Featherstone, Dennis C. Married

Female Labour Force Participation: A Micro Study.

Special Labour Force Studies, Ser. B, No, 4, Ottawa,

Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1970.

Statistics Canada. Historical Labour Force StatisticsActual Data, Seasonal Factors, Seasonally Adjusted

Data. Annually.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Incomes o f Unemployed Individuals and

Their Families, 1971. Ottawa, Information Canada,

1972.

_______________ The Labour Force. Monthly.

-----------------------Labour Force Survey Division .Research

Papers. Occasional.

Swan, N., MacRae, P., and Steinberg, C. Income Maintenance Programs: Their Effect on Labour Supply

and Aggregate Demand in the Mari times. Ottawa,

Economic Council of Canada, 1976.

Vandercamp, John. Mobility Behavior in the Camdian

Labour Force. Economic Council of Canada, Special

Study, No. 16, Ottawa, Information Canada, 1973.

Australia

Advisory Committee on Commonwealth Employment Service Statistics. Report o f the Advisory Committee on

Commonwealth Employment Service Statistics. Melbourne, November 1973.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Labour Force. Quarterly

and annually.

_____________ . Seasonally Adjusted Indicators. Annually.

Department of Labour. An Analysis o f Full Employment in

Australia. Labor Market Studies No. 2,1970.

_______________Female Unemployment in Four Urban

Centers. Labour Market Studies No. 3,1970.

_______________Manpower Policy in Australia. 1974.

“The Employment Situation,” Personnel Practice Bulletin, March 1971, pp. 86-89.

The Flinders University, Institute of Labour Studies.

Australian Bulletin o f Labour. Quarterly.

Gregory, R. G., and Sheehan, P. J. Hidden and Other

Measures o f Unemployment in Australia 1964-1972.

The Flinders University, Institute of Labour Studies,

Working Paper Series No. 7, February 1974.

Hancock, Keith, and Hughes, Barry. Relative Wages, Institutions and Australian Labour Markets. The Flinders

University, Institute of Labour Studies, Working Paper

Series No. I,May 1975.

Keating, M. The Australian Workforce 1910-11 to 1960-61.

Canberra, Progress Press, 1973.

164

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Khoo, Edmond. Estimates o f the Full-Term Duration o f

Unemployment in Australia 1962 to 1975. The Flinders

University, Institute of Labour Studies, Working Paper

Series No. 15, February 1976.

MacDonald, John. Wages and Prices in Australia: On the

Short and Long-Run Trade-Offs Between Inflation and

Unemployment. The Flinders University, Institute of

Labour Studies, Working Paper Series No. 13, December

1974.

Merrilees, Bill. “Hidden Unemployment of Women in

Australia: Frictional, Cyclical, and Structural Dimensions,” Journal o f Industrial Relations, March 1977, pp.

50-64.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Economic Surveys: Australia. Annually.

Parkin, Michael. “The Short-Run and Long-Run Trade-Offs

Between Inflation and Unemployment in Australia,”

Australian Economic Papers, December 1973, pp. 127-

44.

Japan

Abegglen, James C. Management and Worker: The Japanese

Solution. Tokyo, Sophia University, 1973.

Akaoka, Isao. “Control of Amount of Employment in Japanese Companies Under the Life-Time Employment,”

Kyoto University Economic Review, April-0ctober

1974, pp. 59-78.

Awanohara, Susumu. “Japan Faces Labour Dilemma,” Far

Eastern Economic Review, March 12, 1976, pp. 37-38.

Braun, Kurt. Labor Law and Practice in Japan. BLS Report

376,1970.

Bureau of Statistics. Annual Report on the Labour Force

Survey.

_______________ _ Monthly Report on the Labour Force

Survey.

Cole, Robert E. “Functional Alternatives and Economic

Development: An Empirical Example of Permanent Employment in Japan,” American Sociological Review,

August 1973, pp. 424-38.

_______________ _Japanese Blue Collar: The Changing Tradition. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1971.

_____________ “Permanent Employment in Japan:

Facts and Fantasies,” Industrial and Labor Relations

Review, October 1972, pp. 615-30.

Cole, Robert E., and Umetani, Shuruchiro. “Manpower

Training and Lifetime Employment in Japan,” Monthly

Labor Review, November 1974, pp. 43-45.

Dahareng, Marcelle. “Japanese Women at Work,” Free

Labour World, December 1971, pp. 8-10.

Diebold, John. “Management Can Learn from Japan,”

Business Week, September 29, 1973, pp. 14 and 19.

Economic Planning Agency. Japanese Economic Indicators.

Monthly.

Emi, Koichi. “The Structure and its Movements of the Tertiary Industry in Japan,” Hitotsubashi Journal o f Economics, June 1971, pp. 23-32.

“Employment Situation Still Serious,” Mainichi Daily

News, March 8, 1977.

“Hidden Unemployment Rapidly Growing,” The Oriental

Economist, April 1975, p. 44.

Japan Times, Ltd. Economic Survey o f Japan, I970j71.

Tokyo, Japan Times, Ltd., 1971.

“The Japanese Labor Market After the Oil Crisis,” Japan

Labor Bulletin, June 1977, pp. 4-8.

“The Labor Market for College Graduates in Postwar Japan,” Japan Labor Bulletin, March 1977, pp. 5-12.

“Layoff with Guaranteed Income,” Japanese Labour Bulletin, December 1971, pp. 2-3.

“Manpower Policy in Japan,” OECD Observer, April 1973,

pp. 33-35.

Marsh, Robert M., and Mannari, Hiroshi. “A New Look at

‘Lifetime Commitment’ in Japanese Industry,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, July 1972, pp.

611-30.

Oberdorfer, Don. “Japanese Soft Touch on Layoffs,” The

Washington Post, March 9,1975, pp. Gl and G8.

Okada, Yasuiko. “Textile Industry Hit by Serious Recession,” The Japan Economic Review, February 15,1975,

P-3.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Manpower Policy in Japan. Paris, OECD, 1973.

165

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
“Repercussions of Oil Crisis,” Japan Labor Bulletin, January 1974,p . 1.

Reubens, Beatrice. “Manpower Training in Japan,”Monthly

Labor Review, September 1973, pp. 16-24.

Taira, Koji. Economic Development and the Labor Market

in Japan. New York, Columbia University Press, 1970.

“The 1973 Labor White Paper,” Japan Labor Bulletin, September 1974, pp. 5-8.

France

Castellan, Michel “Comptes Sociodemographiques: L’Exemple des Emplois et de la Mobilite Intersectorielle,”

Economic et Statistique, Fevrier 1976, pp. 27-38.

“Early Retirement for Some Manual Workers in France,”

Incomes Data Services International Report, July 1976,

PP - 2-3.

Grais, Bernard. “Methodes et Sources Utilisees Pour la

Mesure du Chomage,” Economie et Statistique, March

1975, pp. 63-69.

Guilbert, Madeleine, and others. Le Travail Temporaire.

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Travaux et

Documents, No. 2, Paris, Societe des Amis du Centre

d’Etudes Sociologiques, 1970.

Institute National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques. Enquetes sur LEmploi, Series D. Annually.

------------------ .Structures de la Population Active.

Resultats des Enquetes sur LEmploi 1962 1967. Les

collections de PINSEE Series D. Paris, INSEE, 1970.

Mi chon, Francois. Chomeurs et Chomage. Paris, Universite

de Paris, Seminaire d’Economie du Travail, 1974.

Ministere du Travail. Bulletin Mensuel des Statistiques du

Travail. Monthly.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Manpower Policy in France. Paris, OECD, 1973.

“Que deviennent les demandeurs d’emploi au sortir de 1’

ANPE?” Economie et Statistique, Mai 1977, pp. 57-

62.

“Retire the Old, Recruit the Young,” The Economist,

April 30, 1977, pp. 96-99.

Vachei, Jacques. “Les Sources Statistiques sur L’Emploi,”

Economie et Statistique, Mai 1976, pp. 13-27.

Germany

“Bonn Curbs Foreign Laborers,” The Washington Post,

November 24, 1973, p. A-l.

Bremer, Hermann W. “Job Placement in Germany, ” International Labour Review, September/October 1970,

pp. 12-15.

Bundeminister fur Arbeit und Sozialordnung. Hauptergebnisse derArbeits und Sozialstatistik. Annually.

Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit. Amtliche Nachrichten der Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit-Arbeitsstatistik. Annually and

monthly.

Deutsche Bundesbank. Statistiche Beihefte zu den Monatsberichten der Deutschen Bundesbank, Reihe 4 Saisonbereinigte Wirtschaftszahlen. Monthly.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Manpower Policy in Germany. Paris, OECD, 1974.

Ross-Skinner, Jean. “How Germany Beat Inflation,” Dun’s,

November 1974, pp. 80-82.

Statistisches Bundesamt. Entwicklung der Erwerbstatigkeit,

Reihe 6, Fachserie A, Bevolkerung undKultur. Annually.

_______________ Wirtschaft und Statistik. Monthly.

“Training by Stages,” Training for Progress, 1970, pp. 8-15.

“Unemployment Problems in the Federal Republic of Germany,” Department o f Employment Gazette (Great

Britain), April 1977, p. 344.

Voss, Joachim H., ed. “What’s New in Labor and Social

Policy?” New York, German Information Center,

Monthly 1975-76.

Great Britain

“A Recession With Full Employment?” The Economist,

January 24, 1970, pp. 49-50.

Baxter, J. L. “Long-Term Unemployment in Great Britain,

1953-1971,” Bulletin o f the Institute o f Economics and

Statistics, November 1972, pp. 329-44.

“Britain’s Jobless: A Rapid Rise,” U.S. News and World Report, May 24, 1971, pp. 84-85.

Digitized 

166

for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
‘Characteristics of the Unemployed: Sample Survey,” Department o f Employment Gazette, June 1973, pp. 211-

19.

“Comparisons Between Census of Population and Ministry

of Labour Estimates of Working Population,” Ministry

of Labour Gazette, November 1965, pp. 478-79.

Cubbin, J. S., and Foley, K. “The Extent of Benefit-Induced

Unemployment in Great Britain: Some New Evidence,

Oxford Economic Papers, March 1977, pp. 128-40.

Daniel, W. W. “A National Survey of the Unemployed,”

PEP Broadsheet No. 546, October 1974.

Department of Employment. Department o f Employment

Gazette. Monthly.

“Economic Situation,” Economic Trends, May 1971, pp.

iii-vii.

General Federation of Trade Unions. The Present Unemploym ent-An Analysis and Policy Proposals. Leicester,

Leicester Printers Ltd., 1972.

“Government Measures to Alleviate Unemployment,”

Department o f Employment Gazette, April 1977,

p. 374.

“Government Plans for Employment and Training,” Department o f Employment Gazette, March 1973, pp.

239-45.

“Heath Tightening Unemployment,” The Washington Post,

December 6,1971, p. D-12.

Hill, M. J. Men Out o f Work: A Study o f Unemployment in

3 English Towns. Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press, 1973.

Hunt, Audrey. A Survey o f Women’sEmployment. London,

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1968.

Interdepartmental Working Party on Unemployment Statistics. Unemployment Statistics: Report o f an Interdepartmental Working Party. London, Her Majesty’s

Stationery Office, 1972.

“Job Release Takes Off,” Department o f Employment

Gazette, January 1977, p. 1.

“Job Swap,” Income Data Services International Report,

October 1976, p. 2.

Manpower Services Commission. Annual Report 1974-75.

London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1974.

“MSC Evaluates Job Creation,” Department o f Employment Gazette, March 1977, pp. 211-17.

Mukheijee, Santosh. There's Work to be Done. London,

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1976.

Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. A Quality

Check on the 1966 10 Percent Sample Census o f England and Wales. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery

Office, 1972.

_________________ The General Household Survey. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, annually from

1971.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Economic Surveys: United Kingdom. Annually.

----------------------- .Manpower Policy in the United Kingdom. Paris, OECD, 1970.

Parker, S. R., and others. Effects o f the Redundancy Payments Act. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,

1971.

Pettman, Barrie O. “Government Vocational Training

Schemes in Great Britain,” International Journal o f

Social Economics, pp. 184-96.

______________ “Industrial Training in Great Britain,”

International Journal o f Social Economics, Vol. 1, No.

1, pp. 63-83.

Phillips, A. W. “The Relation Between Unemployment and

the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United

Kingdom, 1861-1957,” Economica, November 1958, pp.

283-99.

Plan for Modern Employment Service,” Department o f

Employment Gazette, December 1972, p. 1095-98.

Reid, Graham L. “The Role of the Employment Service in

Redeployment in Great Britain,” British Journal o f Industrial Relations, July 1971, pp. 160-84.

Showier, Brian. The Employment Service and Management.

Institute of Scientific Business No. 6. Yorkshire, Institute of Scientific Business, 1972.

Joseph, Keith. “Measuring Unemployment,” Long Range Standing, Guy. “Hidden Workless,” New Society, October

Planning, June 1976, pp. 12-15. 14, 1971, pp. 716-19.

Digitized for FRASER 

167

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
“Trends in the Composition of the Unemployed,” Department o f Employment Gazette, March 1973,pp. 246-55.

“Unemployment and Notified Vacancies-Flow Statistics,”

Department o f Employment Gazette, September 1976,

pp. 976-81.

“The Unemployment Statistics and Their Interpretation,”

Department o f Employment Gazette, March 1975, pp.

179-83.

“Unemployment Still Rising,” Labour Research, October

1970, pp. 155-56.

“The Unregistered Unemployed in Great Britain,” Department o f Employment Gazette, December 1976, pp.

1331-36.

Watson, J. Jordan. “Manpower Policy in Great Britain,”

International Labour Review, May/June 1970, pp. 17-19.

Wedderburn, Dorothy. White Collar Redundancy. University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Economics,

Occasional Paper No. 1.Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Zeisel, Joseph S. “Comparison of British and U.S. Unemployment Rates,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1962,

pp. 489-501.

________________ The Structure o f Unemployment at Full

Employment in Great Britain and the United States.

Ann Arbor, University Microfilms.

Italy

Birtig, Guido. “Employment Problems and the Educational

System in Italy,” International Labour Review, July-August 1976, pp. 11-25.

CENSIS. L ’Occupazione Occulta. CENSIS Ricerca No. 2.

Rome, CENSIS, 1976.

Gilbert, Sari. “Italy’s Universities: Preparation for the Jobless Rolls,” The Washington Post, March 5, 1977, p.

A-10.

“Incentives to Help Young Workers,” Income Data Services

International Report, December 1976, p. 7.

“Indagine Speciale Sulle Persone Non Appartenenti Alle

Forze Di Lavoro,” Supplement to the Monthly Bulletin o f Statistics, No. 11, November 1971. *

Istituto Centrale di Statistica. Annuario di Statistiche de

Lavoro. Annually.

-------------------------Bolletino Mensile di Statistica. Monthly

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Economic Surveys: Italy. Annually.

“Si Allarga L’area del Malessere,” II Sole, May 28, 1977,

pp. 1-2.

Sweden

“Anti-Recession Policies in Sweden,” OECD Obsewer,

March-April 1976, pp. 31-32.

Brehmer, Ekhard, and Bradford, Maxwell R. “Incomes and

Labor Market Policies in Sweden, 1945-1970,” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, March 1974, pp.

101-26.

Brems, Hans. “Swedish Fine Tuning,” Challenge, MarchApril 1976, pp. 3942.

“Flexible Retirement Provisions in Sweden: A Novel System,” European Industrial Relations Review, March

1977, pp. 11-12.

Forseback, Lennart. Industrial Relations and Employment

in Sweden. Stockholm, The Swedish Institute, 1976.

Ginzberg, Eli. “Sweden’s Manpower Policies: A Look at the

Leader,” Manpower, November 1970, p. 26.

Meltz, Noah M. Observations on Sweden's Employment

Service. Toronto, Toronto University, 1970.

Ministry of Finance. The Swedish Budget. Annually.

National Labour Market Board. Labour Market Statistics.

Monthly.

“Rising Absenteeism in Sweden Attributed to Generous

Sick Pay,” World o f Work Report, January 1977, p. 12.

Statistiska Centralbyran. Arbetskraftsundersokningen. Annually.

_________________ The Labour Force Surveys. Monthly.

Swerdloff, Sol. “Sweden’s Manpower Programs,” Monthly

Labor Review, January 1966, pp. 1-6.

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 273-155/6467 1-3

Digitized for FRASER 

168

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Regional Offices

AMERICAN

Region i

1603 JFK Federal Building 

Government Center 

Boston Mass 02203 

Phone: (617) 223-6761

Region ii

Suite 3400 

1515 Broadway 

New York. N Y 10036 

Phone: '212) 399-5405

Region lii

3535 Market Street 

P O Box 13309 

Philadelphia. Pa 19101 

Phone (215) 596-1154

Region IV

1371 Peachtree Street. NE_ 

Atlanta. Ga 30309 

Phone: (404) 881-4418

Region V

9th Floor

Federal Office Building 

230 S Dearborn Street 

Chicago, III 60604 

Phone: (312) 353-1880

Region VI

Second Floor

555 Griffin Square Building 

Dallas. Tex. 75202 

Phone: (214) 749-3516

Regions VII and VIII*

911 Walnut Street 

Kansas City, Mo. 64106 

Phone: (816) 374-2481

Regions IX and X**

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

Box 36017

San Francisco, Calif. 94102 

Phone: (415) 556-4678

* Regions VII and VII are serviced 

by Kansas City

“ Regions IX and X are serviced 

by San Francisco

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U. S. Department of Labor 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Washington, D C. 20212

Official Business 

Penalty tor private use. $300

Postage and Fees Paid 

U.S. Department of Labor

Third Class Mail

Lab-441

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis