Monthly Labor Review June 2000 3

International Unemployment Rates

Comparative unemployment rates are

used frequently in international

analyses of labor markets and are cited

often in the press. In the United States, the

comparative levels are considered to be an

important measure of U.S. economic performance relative to that of other developed countries. Comparative unemployment rates also

provide a springboard for investigating the

economic, institutional, and social factors that

influence cross-country differences in joblessness.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, the

Bureau) has adjusted foreign unemployment

rates to U.S. concepts since the early 1960s.

Three other organizations—the Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD), the International Labor Office (ILO), and

the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat)—also adjust national data on

unemployment to a common conceptual basis. The resulting “standardized” or “harmonized” rates are intended to provide a better

basis for international comparison than the national figures on unemployment offer.

The standardized rates, as currently published by the three organizations that make

comparisons outside of Europe (BLS, OECD, and

ILO), all show a similar result: a significant gap

in unemployment rates between the United

States, on the one hand, and Canada and Europe, on the other. In 1998, for example, when

International unemployment rates:

how comparable are they?

Adjusted to U.S. concepts, the Canadian

unemployment rate is reduced

by 1 percentage point; effects of adjustments

on European unemployment rates are smaller

Constance Sorrentino

Constance Sorrentino is an

economist in the Division of

Foreign Labor Statistics,

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

the U.S. unemployment rate was 4.5 percent,

Canada’s rate was 8.3 percent, and the rate for

the European Union was even higher, at 9.9

percent.1 It is of interest to find out how much

of this gap is attributable to measurement differences that may not have been accounted

for. If the gap is due mainly to conceptual differences, then there is no reason to study why

some countries appear to be doing better than

others at keeping unemployment low.2

All of the comparative programs have noted

that some differences remain for which adjustments are not made, either because they are

believed to be too small to matter or because

there is no basis upon which to make regular

adjustments. Recent evidence, however, suggests that it might be useful to revisit this issue. For example, in 1998, a Statistics Canada

study used unpublished tabulations to reveal

surprisingly significant differences between

U.S. and Canadian measures of unemployment,

owing to different implementations of similar

concepts. In particular, although both countries require a person to be available for work

and to have conducted a job search in order

for that person to be classified as unemployed,

the requirements are interpreted in different ways.

The main difference, in terms of impact, is the

treatment of so-called passive jobseekers— persons who conduct their search for work merely

by reading newspaper ads. Such individuals are

included in the unemployed in Canada, but are
4 Monthly Labor Review June 2000

International Unemployment Rates

excluded therefrom in the United States. The impact of this difference inched upward from a very small level in the 1980s to a

significant level in the 1990s. The overall impact of making all the

adjustments was to lower the Canadian unemployment rate by a

little less than 1 percentage point. Although this did not mean

that the Canadian unemployment rate fell below the U.S. rate, it

reduced the differential between the respective rates by onefifth.

The BLS comparisons program covers Australia, Canada,

Japan, and six European countries: France, Germany, Italy, the

Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.3 The result

of the Canadian study has inspired this article’s investigation of

the comparisons of the United States with Europe. A later phase

of the project will extend the work to Japan and Australia.4

The investigation begins with a discussion of the labor

force definitions recommended by the ILO and the varying

interpretations of these guidelines in the U.S., Canadian, and

European labor force surveys. Measurement differences are

sorted out and classified according to the direction of their

impact. The size of the impact of these differences is then

assessed, on the basis of the Canadian study and published

and unpublished data for the European Union countries provided by Eurostat.

Next, adjustments of U.S. unemployment rates to European and Canadian concepts are presented to see if this reverse comparison arrives at different results. Then, limitations

of the study are discussed, and the article concludes by setting out and evaluating some implications of the results for

the BLS comparative series.

Although some references are made to the other three international comparisons programs, the article focuses on the

BLS program. All four programs, which now yield virtually the

same results, are described in the appendix.

The ILO definition and its interpretations

Unemployment, like most social phenomena, can be defined

in different ways. No single definition can satisfy all analytical purposes.5 However, in the interests of international comparability, the ILO provides national statistical offices with

recommendations on the definition and measurement of unemployment.6 These guidelines have become the standards

for many countries; consequently, definitions used in labor

force surveys are now broadly similar in outline and spirit if

not in all of their details.

The ILO guidelines are the result of meetings of experts and

discussions at periodic international conferences of labor statisticians attended by delegates representing national governments, employer’s organizations, and labor unions. Compromises are made among the various constituencies, as well as

among countries at different levels of development. Sometimes the guidelines must be deliberately vague or provide

options in order to achieve consensus. The guidelines certainly facilitate cross-country comparisons, because they serve

to draw countries toward a common conceptual framework.

The OECD has worked toward making the guidelines more specific in order to enhance comparisons among its member countries,7 and Eurostat’s Community Labor Force Surveys have

helped to establish common interpretations within the European Union.

According to the latest ILO guidelines, the unemployed are

persons over a certain specified age who are without work,

available for work, and actively seeking work. Virtually all countries agree that an unemployed person should be without any

work at all; that is, employment takes precedence over unemployment. They also agree that unemployed persons should

be available for work and actively seeking work. However,

countries have chosen to implement these latter two criteria

differently, which causes certain incompatibilities in the measurement of unemployment internationally. Further, in a number of other areas, the ILO definition has been either interpreted differently or not followed at all, particularly in regard

to the treatment of students, persons on layoff, persons waiting to start a new job, and unpaid family workers. Lower age

limits and the treatment of the Armed Forces also differ.

The varying interpretations of unemployment and the labor

force (the sum of the employed and the unemployed) derive from

different national circumstances and needs. Countries generally

have very good reasons for their own interpretations of, or deviations from, the ILO definitions. But these differences, of course,

create problems for international comparisons. The ILO recommends that those countries which choose to deviate from the

guidelines collect data that permit one to convert from the

national to the international standards. Some countries do

this; others do not.

Exhibit 1 compiles the latest ILO guidelines, U.S. and Canadian concepts, and the Eurostat interpretation of the ILO guidelines used in European Union labor force surveys. The U.S.

concepts are those of the Current Population Survey (CPS)

from 1994 onward, Canada’s concepts are those of the Labor

Force Survey from 1997 onward, and the Eurostat concepts

are those of the Community Labor Force Survey from 1992

onward. In this article, for the European countries, it is more

convenient to present adjustments based on the Eurostat data

rather than the data from the national labor force surveys.8

Sweden’s national concepts, however, will be referenced with

regard to that country’s treatment of students. The Bureau

adjusts the Swedish national data on this point in its unemployment comparisons program, as do Eurostat and the other

comparative programs.

The ILO states that population censuses and sample surveys of households or individuals (often called labor force

surveys) constitute a comprehensive means of collecting data

on the labor force. Establishment surveys and administrative

records may also serve as sources for obtaining more precise,

more frequent, and more detailed statistics on particular com-
 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 5

Frequency of survey At least biannualy Monthly Monthly Annual, in spring1

Scope of survey:

 Households or persons Unspecified Households Households Households or persons

 Institutional population Included Excluded Excluded Excluded

 Collective households (hotels, motels,

 and so forth) Included Included Included Excluded

 Special exclusions None None Yukon and Northwest

Territories; Indian

reserves

Labor force denominator:

 Age limits Unspecified 16 years and older 15 years and older 15 years and older

 Civilian or total Total Civilian Civilian Includes career military2

 Treatment of unpaid family workers

 working fewer than 15 hours per week Employed Not in labor force; Employed Employed

potentially unemployed

 Unemployment

Job search:

 Reference period for job search Specified recent period 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks

 Search only by reading newspaper ads Excluded Excluded Included Included

 Waiting to start new job No search required Search required No search required; job No search required

must start in 4 weeks

Temporarily laid off Search optional No search required No search required Search required

Availability criterion: Yes Yes Yes Yes

When Unspecified During reference week During reference week Within 2 weeks of interview

Availability question asked Yes Yes Yes Yes

 Exceptions Unspecified Temporary illness and Temporary illness, None

waiting to start new job personal or family

responsibilities,

vacation, awaiting

new job

 Treatment of those temporarily laid off Employed if formal job Unemployed if expecting to Unemployed if expecting Unemployed if actively looking for

attachment; unemployed be recalled to job in 6 to be recalled within 1 for work in the last 4 weeks and if

if no attachment and months or employer gives year and available for available to start work in 2 weeks;

available for work; job recall date. Must be work; no search otherwise classified as inactive.

search requirement is available for work, but no required. (See text for “zero hours” case.)

optional in such cases. job search required.

 Treatment of full-time students seeking Unemployed Unemployed Not in labor force Unemployed

 full-time work and available for work

 Treatment of unpaid family workers Employed Unemployed Employed Employed

 working fewer than 15 hours per week

 and available for work and seeking work

1

 A new EU regulation calls for labor force surveys on a continuous basis, with

quarterly results.

2

 If residing in private households.

SOURCE: Prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the following documents: ILO Resolution Concerning Economically Active Population, Employment, Unemployment, and Underemployment (on the Internet at http://

www.ilo.org/public/120stat/res/ecacpop.htm); “Explanatory Notes on Household Data,” Employment and Earnings (Bureau of Labor Statistics, published

monthly); “Notes on the Survey,” The Labour Force (Statistics Canada, published

monthly); and The European Union Labour Force Survey: Methods and Definitions (Eurostat, 1996).

Persons doing compulsory

military service are excluded

from the population of private

households and regarded as

members of collective

households, even if, during the

reference week, they are present

in the private household to

which they belong.

Exhibit 1. Synopsis of coverage and concepts of unemployment in labor force surveys,

 International Labor Office (ILO), United States, Canada, and Eurostat

 ILO standard United States Canada Eurostat

 (1982 onward) (1994 onward) (1997 onward) (1992 onward)

Item
6 Monthly Labor Review June 2000

International Unemployment Rates

ponents of the labor force. Although not explicitly stated by

the ILO, it is well recognized that labor force surveys are the

desirable source for international comparisons of unemployment. In most countries, such surveys cover the entire noninstitutional population of working age and broadly follow the

ILO standard definitions. Administrative data on employment

office registrations are not suitable for international comparisons, because they do not cover all persons who may be unemployed and because administrative regulations differ greatly

across countries.9 Therefore, exhibit 1 focuses on labor force

survey sources of unemployment statistics.

A number of differences in frequency and scope of labor

force surveys are apparent.

Frequency. The ILO recommends that countries collect and

compile statistics on the labor force at least twice a year. The U.S.

and Canadian surveys are conducted monthly, while the Eurostat

survey is taken annually, each spring. A new European Union

(EU) regulation calls for labor force surveys on a “continuous”

basis, with quarterly results. Currently, Italy, the Netherlands,

and the United Kingdom conduct quarterly surveys, Sweden’s is

monthly, and France and Germany conduct their surveys only in

the spring of each year. France will begin continuous surveys

next year, while Germany has not yet announced plans for more

frequent surveys. Annual estimates of unemployment and the

labor force for France and Germany are constructed by Eurostat

and the national authorities on the basis of other indicators, such

as employment office registrations and establishment surveys,

that are available more frequently.

Scope. Exhibit 1 indicates that there are also some differences

in the scope of the various surveys with regard to whether households or persons are surveyed and whether collective households are covered. Canada excludes the Yukon and Northwest

Territories, as well as Indian reserves, from its survey.

The labor force denominator for calculating the unemployment rate also may differ in its composition, in several ways.

Lower age limits. The ILO advises that lower age limits should

be established for the labor force, but it does not say what

those limits should be. The United States has chosen to use an

age limit of 16 years, while Canada and the EU countries cover

persons 15 years and older.

Armed Forces. The ILO recommends including all members

of the Armed Forces, whether career military or draftees (conscripts), as paid employees and, hence, in the labor force. The

United States and Canada exclude all the Armed Forces and

present their data on a civilian labor force basis, while Eurostat

includes career military personnel residing in private households. From 1983 to 1993, the Bureau published U.S. unemployment rates on both a civilian and a total labor force basis.

Unpaid family workers. Unpaid family workers are to be

counted among those in the labor force (employed), with no

cutoff on the number of hours worked, according to the ILO. By

contrast, the United States includes only those unpaid family

workers who worked 15 or more hours in the reference week.

Canada and the European Union follow the ILO definition.

Exhibit 1 also shows a number of differences in the definition of unemployment.

Active job search. The reference period for demonstrating

that one is actively undertaking a job search is now 4 weeks

for all the surveys. But the meaning of “active job search”

may differ across countries. The ILO says that unemployed

persons should be actively seeking work and that their job

search activities should be tested. The ILO lists the following

activities that can qualify a person as actively undertaking a

job search:

• Registering at an employment exchange

• Applying to employers

• Checking work sites

• Placing or answering newspaper ads

• Seeking assistance of friends or relatives

• Looking for land, building, or machinery to establish one’s

own enterprise

• Applying for a business-related license

• Etc.

Note that there is no listing for “reading newspaper ads” or

“studying newspaper ads”; the ILO clearly refers to “placing or

answering ads.” But “reading or studying ads” could enter the

list under “Etc.”

In the U.S. CPS, conducting an objectively measurable job

search is a necessary condition for being classified as unemployed, except for those on temporary layoff. The CPS makes a

distinction between search methods that are “active” and “passive” and excludes those who use passive methods alone from

the count of the unemployed. Only methods that could result

in a job offer without further action on the part of the jobseeker

are considered “active.” These methods include answering or

placing newspaper ads, visiting employment offices or businesses, calling to inquire about a position, sending job applications, and asking friends and family members for job leads.

No such active/passive distinction is made in Canada and

Europe, where activities aimed at gathering information about

job opportunities are also considered legitimate job search

methods, particularly when such activities are reported in the

wake of a declaration of interest in finding work. Therefore,

persons available for work whose only search method was

looking at want ads in the newspaper10 are counted as unem-
 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 7

ployed in Europe and Canada, but not in the United States.11

Waiting to start a new job. According to the ILO, persons

waiting to start a new job should be classified as unemployed

without being required to have searched for a job during the

previous 4 weeks. This definition is followed by Canada and

Eurostat. Prior to 1994, the United States also subscribed to

the ILO definition. Since 1994, the U.S. CPS requires that such

persons engage in an active job search in the previous 4 weeks

in order to be counted as unemployed.

Layoffs. ILO guidelines recommend classifying persons on

layoff as employed if they have a strong attachment to their

job (as determined by national circumstances and evidenced

by payment of salary or the existence of a recall date, for example). If they are only weakly or not at all attached to their

job, they are to be counted as unemployed. The ILO standards

allow the job search to be optional in such cases, but require

that the person be available to work. Countries have made

divergent decisions on these points. Eurostat says that persons on layoff should be seeking work and be available for

work in order to be classified as unemployed; otherwise, they

are counted as not in the labor force.

In addition, Eurostat enumerates as employed a group of

persons who could be considered similar to persons on layoff

in other countries: persons who are classified as employed,

but who are not at work due to “slack work for technical or

economic reasons.” These persons are so classified because

they have a formal job attachment.

The United States and Canada count persons on layoff as

unemployed and do not require them to be searching for a job.

Since 1994 in the United States, persons on layoff must expect

to be recalled to the job in 6 months, or the employer must

have given them a recall date. Canada requires that persons

on layoff have a recall date within a year in order to be classified as unemployed.

Current availability. The ILO definition says that the unemployed should be available for work in the reference period,

but no particular reference period is specified, and no exceptions are noted. The United States and Canada interpret “current availability” to mean “availability to take up work in the

reference week.” Eurostat, by contrast, allows availability to

extend to within 2 weeks after the time of the interview.12 Canada

makes exceptions to the availability criterion to allow persons

who are temporarily unavailable because of illness, personal

or family responsibilities, or vacations to be counted as unemployed. The only exceptions allowed by the U.S. CPS are for

persons who respond that they are not available due to temporary illness or because they are waiting to start a new job.

The more restrictive interpretation of current availability by

the United States is related to the fact that many students are

in the labor force. The strict application of the criterion serves

to count students only when they are truly available for work

and not looking for a job to take up after the school term ends.

This consideration may not be as important in countries without a large student workforce, and it perhaps helps to explain

the wider window of availability allowed by Eurostat. Canada,

which also has a large student workforce, contends with the

issue in a different way, discussed next.

Students. The ILO definition says that students who satisfy

all the criteria for classification as unemployed should be classified as such. They should not be treated as a special group.

Canada and Sweden, however, treat students differently from

other labor force groups. In the official national statistics of

Canada, full-time students seeking full-time work are omitted

from the ranks of the unemployed on the grounds that they

could not be currently available, even if they respond that

they are. In Sweden, full-time students seeking work (whether

full or part time) are excluded from the unemployed. In the

United States, it is not uncommon for full-time students to

hold either full-time or part-time jobs; consequently, those who

are seeking work are classified as unemployed if they also

respond that they are currently available for work.

Canada and Sweden both have their reasons for not counting students as unemployed. In Canada, the labor market behavior of full-time students indicates that there is a peak of

searching for full-time work in the spring and that the students

do not tend to start the jobs until the school year is over,

despite what they say about their availability. Therefore, most

are not regarded as a current supply of full-time labor. Their

omission overcompensates to some extent, because some

would indeed take full-time work while attending school full

time.13 Sweden’s government made a decision in 1986 that fulltime students should be excluded even if they fulfill the three

ILO criteria of being without work, seeking work, and being

available for work.14 Many of these students are enrolled in

educational programs to increase their employability.

Eurostat follows the ILO guidelines with regard to students:

the harmonized unemployment rate for Sweden is adjusted to

include students who seek jobs. Likewise, the Bureau already

makes this adjustment, which is a large one. (See BLS section

in the appendix.)

Unpaid family workers. Because unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours per week are excluded from the CPS

employment count, they are asked the questions that determine whether they are or are not counted as unemployed. If

they are available for and actively seeking work, they are classified as unemployed. According to the ILO, Canadian, and

European definitions, they cannot be unemployed, because

they are classified as employed. (Because the number of unpaid family workers is already small, and the number unemployed would be even smaller, this difference is ignored in the

sections that present adjustments of unemployment to U.S
8 Monthly Labor Review June 2000

International Unemployment Rates

concepts. The only accommodation made is to subtract all

unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours per week

from the denominator of the rate calculation.)

Differences in concepts

Differences in labor force and unemployment concepts among

the United States and other countries derive from three situations: (1) The U.S. CPS does not follow the ILO definitions on a

number of points on which other countries do follow the guidelines (see exhibit 2); (2) conversely, some countries diverge

from the ILO definitions on elements for which the CPS is in

accord with the ILO; and (3) in instances where the ILO guidelines are vague or optional, countries have chosen different

interpretations.

The differences across countries can be summarized according to the direction of their impact on the U.S. unemployment rate: (1) differences causing U.S. rates to be understated

in international comparisons; and (2) differences causing U.S.

rates to be overstated in international comparisons. Concepts

of “Europe” refer to the concepts of Eurostat rather than to

national concepts, except for the references to students in

Sweden.

Differences causing U.S. rates to be understated. The following differences make up this category:

• The U.S. lower age limit is 16 years. Canada and Eurostat

use a lower limit of 15 years. Youths aged 15 tend to have

higher-than-average unemployment rates.

• “Passive jobseekers” (persons reading or studying

help-wanted ads in newspapers as their sole means of

searching for a job) are not included in the U.S. unemployed; they are included in Canada and Europe.

• The criteria counting a person as currently available for

work are broader in Canada and Europe than in the United

States.

• In the United States, since 1994, persons waiting to start

a new job are required to conduct a job search; no search

activity is required for such persons in Canada or

Europe.

Differences causing U.S. rates to be overstated. This category comprises the following differences:

• All persons on temporary layoff are counted as unemployed in the United States and Canada, with no requirement that the person conduct a job search. In

Europe, persons on temporary layoff either must be

Exhibit 2. U.S. divergence from ILO

 guidelines

· The CPS data are on a civilian labor force basis; the

ILO recommends a total labor force basis (including

all Armed Forces personnel).

· The CPS excludes unpaid family workers working

fewer than 15 hours per week from the labor force

(although some may be included in the unemployed

if they are actively seeking work and are available

for work); the ILO recommends including all unpaid

family workers in the labor force.

· The CPS classifies all persons on layoff (who have a

recall date or who expect to be recalled within 6

months) as unemployed; the ILO recommends that a

distinction be made between those persons laid off,

but who have a strong attachment to their job, and

those laid off and who have a weak attachment to their

job; those with a strong attachment (as evidenced by

a recall date) should be counted as employed.

· The CPS requires those waiting to start a new job to

search for work in order to be classified as unemployed; the ILO recommends that such persons be

exempt from any requirement to search for work.

classified as employed (because they have a strong

attachment to their job) or must be actively seeking

work (because they have a weak attachment to their

job) in order to be counted as unemployed. Those

with a weak attachment to their job and who are not

seeking work are classified as not in the labor force.

• In the United States, students who are available for

work and who are seeking a job are classified as unemployed. In Canada, full-time students who are available

for work and who are seeking full-time work are classified as not in the labor force. In Sweden, full-time students who are available for work and who are seeking

(either full-time or part-time) work are omitted from the

labor force.

• In the United States, only family workers who worked

15 or more hours per week are included in the labor force

denominator. All unpaid family workers are included in

the denominator in Europe and Canada.

• The career military are not included in the labor force

denominator in the United States or Canada. EU surveys include the career military residing in private households.
 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 9

Adjustments made for comparability

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Bureau made numerous adjustments to foreign data to render them more comparable to

U.S. data.15 The need for large adjustments diminished considerably during the 1980s and 1990s as more countries began

to conduct regular labor force surveys that generally followed

the ILO recommendations. Nowadays, labor force surveys have

become the norm for measuring unemployment, probing questions have been added, and search and availability tests have

been included and applied to all potentially unemployed persons. These improvements, however, often have not been

implemented in exactly the same way, as described in the foregoing section.

Currently, the Bureau makes adjustments for only a few of

the differences that remain. Foreign data are adjusted to a civilian labor force basis by excluding military personnel from the

labor force for countries where they are included. Unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours per week are also

excluded. These adjustments are usually facilitated by published national data. The numbers of unpaid family workers

were fairly large in some countries in the 1960s, but they have

tapered off to the point that they are now so small that adjustments are generally negligible or nil. The only adjustment to

unemployment made by the Bureau is to add students seeking

a job to the Swedish unemployed, based on data published by

Statistics Sweden. (Note that Eurostat also makes this adjustment for Sweden.)

Heretofore, the Bureau has accepted foreign data on unemployment as comparable to U.S. concepts if availability and

job search tests were applied. The Bureau did not investigate

or adjust for any differences in how these requirements were

implemented. The BLS Handbook of Methods and semiannual

and monthly releases of comparative unemployment rates alert

data users to the fact that, on certain points where countries

apply different concepts or methods of implementation, no

adjustments are made. Thus, no adjustments are currently made

on a number of disparities, on the grounds that (1) the adjustments would make very little, if any, difference, (2) the information needed is not readily available in published form, or (3) the

adjustments should not be made.

The Bureau does not make any adjustments to omit the

passive jobseekers in the Canadian and European unemployment figures. The reason is twofold: first, such data have not

been available on a regular and consistent basis, and second,

the Canadian data remain unpublished. Neither are adjustments

made for the differences in the implementation of the currentavailability criterion, for lack of specific data on this point. By

contrast, data on persons waiting to begin a new job are generally available, but adjustments are not made because the

numbers are thought to be very small. The “waiting” status is

usually a classification that is based on information volunteered in surveys, rather than information elicited with a specific question, which would be likely to yield higher numbers.

Also, some persons waiting to start a new job may have sought

work in the previous 4 weeks and would therefore be properly

classified as unemployed.

The BLS comparisons program has long taken the position

that other countries’ lower age limits should not be standardized to the U.S. age limit of 16, but that they should be adapted

to the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each country. Accordingly, data for Canada, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands are left reflecting age 15 or older, whereas data for

France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom are adjusted, if necessary, to age 16 or older. It could be argued, however, that all

of the foreign data should be adjusted to the U.S. age limit of

16 years of age or older, for stricter comparability with the U.S.

definition.

The BLS program does not adjust for differences in the treatment of layoffs, on the grounds that American and European

layoffs are fundamentally different situations that should remain under national definitions. This position, explained in

detail in a 1981 article,16 is reassessed here in view of the change

in the BLS definition of temporary layoffs in 1994. Since that

time, an expectation of recall or a recall date given by the employer is required for being classified as laid off in the United

States. This change raises the possibility that adjustments

should be made to the European data to include persons on

layoff (the “zero hours” group mentioned earlier) in the unemployed on the grounds that they are not working at all and are

likely to have a recall date or expectation of recall, as is the case

with U.S. layoffs. On the other hand, it could also be argued

that Europeans in such circumstances are more likely to be

called back to their jobs than their U.S. counterparts and should

not be included in the unemployed. At any rate, an adjustment

will be included in this article to illustrate the impact of that

group.

The sections which follow show that reasonable estimates

are feasible for many of the differences that are not currently

accounted for. The availability of previously unpublished data

for Canada, as well as for the European Union countries via

Eurostat, allows for the quantification of many of the differences. The adjustments can be made for a long historical span

of years for Canada, but are confined to just a single year, 1998,

for the European countries. Further work is needed to see if

reasonable adjustments can be made back in time for these

countries. Adjustments back to 1994 appear to be feasible.

It will be shown that many of the adjustments are indeed

small and have to be taken out to at least two decimal places to

be visible. In addition, the adjustments both add and subtract

categories and, to some degree, cancel out.

Canadian unemployment rates

Even though both the United States and Canada subscribe to

most of the standard concepts established by the ILO and ask
10 Monthly Labor Review June 2000

International Unemployment Rates

very similar questions in their labor force surveys, a Statistics

Canada analysis reveals that differences remain that affect the

comparability of the respective unemployment rates. Statistics

Canada published an article in 1998 that identified the following differences between Canadian and U.S. concepts:17

• 15-year-olds are included in the labor force in Canada,

but are excluded therefrom in the United States.

• Reading newspaper ads qualifies as a job search in

Canada, but not in the United States.

• In Canada, persons waiting to start a new job are counted

as unemployed without having to search for a job; in the

United States, a job search has been required for these

persons since 1994.

 • Those unavailable for work due to personal or family

responsibilities or vacations are included in the unemployed in Canada, but not in the United States.

 • Full-time students seeking full-time work who are available for work are excluded from the unemployed in

Canada, but included in the United States.

Statistics Canada identified a few other differences, but

considered them too small to matter:

· Canada excludes the Yukon and Northwest Territories

and Indians on reservations from the scope of its survey.

· With regard to layoffs, Canada requires that the person

have a recall date within a year in order to be classified as

unemployed without having to undertake a job search.

The United States puts no time limit on the recall date.18

· Unpaid family workers are counted in the Canadian labor

force, with no lower limit on their weekly hours worked.

The United States requires that they work at least 15

hours to be counted in the labor force.

The Canadian article presented an adjustment of the Canadian unemployment rate to U.S. concepts. The data used in making the adjustment were from unpublished tabulations by Statistics Canada from the Canadian labor force survey for the period

1976 to 1997. A later article updated the adjustments to 1998.19

Table 1 shows the Statistics Canada analysis. The table

indicates that the unemployment rate gap between Canada

and the United States was reduced from 4.3 percentage points

to 3.5 percentage points in 1997. In 1998, the gap declined

from 3.8 percentage points to 3.0 percentage points. The figures are given in the following tabulation:

1997 1998

Official Canadian rate ................. 9.2 8.3

Official U.S. rate ......................... 4.9 4.5

Adjusted Canadian rate .............. 8.4 7.5

Of interest is the fact that the impact of the differences has

grown over time. In 1976–81, the adjustments had virtually no

impact. During the rest of the 1980s, the impact grew from 0.3

percentage point to 0.4 percentage point. From 1990 to 1998,

the impact of the differences rose from 0.4 percentage point to

between 0.7 and 0.9 percentage point.

There was a slight impact (0.1 to 0.2 percentage point) from

the combined effect of the removal of 15-year-olds, persons

waiting to start a new job, and persons unavailable because of

personal or family responsibilities or vacations. A significant

impact in recent years (0.7 percentage point to 0.8 percentage

point) was due to the removal of passive jobseekers. On the

other hand, the inclusion of full-time students seeking fulltime work increased the Canadian unemployment rate by 0.3

percentage point, partly offsetting the other differences that

decreased the rate.

A Statistics Canada analysis of job searches notes that the

unemployed changed their approach to looking for work over

the past two decades.20 Unemployed jobseekers were making

greater use of job advertisements and personal networks and

less use of formal institutions such as public employment

agencies and unions. The growth in reading ads as the only

method of search was most evident among the long-term unemployed, and the incidence of long-term unemployment increased in Canada over the period. Among the reasons cited

is that reading of help-wanted ads becomes more common as

other methods of search are exhausted and as the jobseeker

approaches “burnout.”

European unemployment rates

Table 2 presents adjustments of EU unemployment rates to

U.S. concepts for spring 1998. The adjustments are shown for

the European Union as a whole, as well as for the six member

countries that are included in the BLS comparisons series. To

summarize, greater comparability is achieved by applying the

following two measures:

• Removing from the labor force 15 year-olds, unpaid fam-

 ily workers working fewer than 15 hours per week, ca-

 reer military personnel, and those omitted from the un-

 employed. (See next.)

 • Removing from the unemployed 15 year-olds, passive

jobseekers, persons waiting to start a new job, and those

not available for work in the reference week and adding

an adjustment for layoffs and for double-counting the

removed groups.

Another way to organize the adjustments shown in table 2

is by the direction of their impact on the unemployment rate.

Eurostat rates are adjusted upward by

• including among the unemployed those persons on temporary layoff who are not seeking work,

• excluding career military from the denominator, and
 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 11

Table 1. The Canadian unemployment rate adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1976–98

 

 Year

1976 ............... 7.2 7.7 –0.1 –0.2 0.0 –0.1 0.2 –0.1 –0.5 –0.6

1977 ............... 8.1 7.1 .0 –.2 .0 .0 .2 –.1 1.0 .9

1978 ............... 8.4 6.1 –.1 –.2 .0 .0 .2 –.2 2.3 2.1

1979 ............... 7.5 5.8 –.1 –.2 .0 .0 .2 –.2 1.7 1.5

1980 ............... 7.5 7.1 –.1 –.2 .0 .0 .2 –.2 .4 .2

1981 ............... 7.6 7.6 –.1 –.3 .0 .0 .2 –.2 .0 –.2

1982 ............... 11.0 9.7 –.1 –.4 .0 .0 .2 –.3 1.3 1.0

1983 ............... 11.9 9.6 .0 –.5 .0 .0 .2 –.3 2.3 2.0

1984 ............... 11.3 7.5 –.1 –.5 .0 .0 .2 –.4 3.8 3.4

1985 ............... 10.5 7.2 .0 –.5 .0 .0 .2 –.4 3.3 2.9

1986 ............... 9.6 7.0 –.1 –.5 .0 .0 .2 –.4 2.6 2.2

1987 ............... 8.9 6.2 –.1 –.5 .0 –.1 .2 –.4 2.7 2.3

1988 ............... 7.8 5.5 –.1 –.5 .0 –.1 .2 –.4 2.3 1.9

1989 ............... 7.5 5.3 .0 –.5 .0 –.1 .2 –.4 2.2 1.8

1990 ............... 8.1 5.6 .0 –.5 .0 –.1 .2 –.4 2.5 2.1

1991 ............... 10.4 6.8 –.1 –.6 .0 .0 .2 –.5 3.6 3.1

1992 ............... 11.3 7.5 –.1 –.7 .0 .0 .3 –.5 3.8 3.3

1993 ............... 11.2 6.9 .0 –.8 .0 .0 .3 –.5 4.3 3.8

1994 ............... 10.4 6.1 –.1 –.8 –.2 –.1 .3 –.8 4.3 3.5

1995 ............... 9.5 5.6 .0 –.8 –.2 –.1 .3 –.8 3.9 3.1

1996 ............... 9.7 5.4 –.1 –.8 –.2 –.1 .3 –.9 4.3 3.4

1997 ............... 9.2 4.9 –.1 –.7 –.2 .0 .3 –.8 4.3 3.5

1998 ............... 8.3 4.5 –.1 –.6 –.3 .0 .2 –.8 3.8 3.0

Unemployment rate Modification to Canadian rate due to—

Official

Canadian

Removal of

15-yearolds

Official

United

States

Passive

job

search

Then removal of— Then addition of—

Future

starts

beginning

1994

Those

unnavailable

because of

personal or family

responsibilities or

vacations

Full-time

students looking

for full-time

work

Total

modifications

to Canadian

unemployment

rate

 Official

 gap

Modified

gap

 • excluding unpaid family workers working fewer than 15

hours from the denominator.

Eurostat rates are adjusted downward by excluding from the

unemployed

• passive jobseekers,

• those who were not currently available for work in the

 reference week,

• 15-year-olds, and

• persons waiting to start a new job who did not seek

 work.

The rationale behind the upward adjustments is as follows.

Layoffs. According to Eurostat, persons on temporary layoff

and seeking work constitute a negligible group, accounting

for about 0.2 percent of total EU unemployment.21 Thus, this

small group is already counted as unemployed. As mentioned

earlier, some persons reported as employed are working “zero

hours” in the reference week for technical or economic reasons and could be considered laid off in the U.S. sense of the

term. Whether they should be classified as unemployed for

comparisons is debatable; an adjustment will be made here to

illustrate the impact.

Eurostat publishes the number of persons absent from work

during the reference week due to economic and technical reasons. The figures indicate that the EU unemployment rate would

be increased by only 0.1 percentage point by including these

persons among the unemployed.

Military personnel and unpaid family workers. Together,

the exclusion of the career military and unpaid family workers

working fewer than 15 hours per week would result in an upward adjustment of less than 0.1 percentage point. The total

upward adjustment, from these two sources and those working “zero hours” in the reference week for technical or economic reasons, rounds to 0.2 percentage point.

The reasoning behind the downward adjustments is as

follows.

Passive jobseekers. In the Eurostat labor force surveys

through 1997, the reporting on methods of job search was

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Update, autumn 1998, p. 35,

and summer 1999, p. 32. These data do not reflect recent revisions to incorporate 1996 census results and a new method of estimation. Thus, the figures

differ slightly from the revised rates shown in table A–1 of the appendix.

NOTE: Components may not add to total modifications column due to

rounding.
12 Monthly Labor Review June 2000

International Unemployment Rates

fairly limited and restricted to the main method used. Beginning in 1998, Eurostat asked for all methods used from a list of

12. The results indicate that in the EU countries, 46 percent of

the unemployed studied advertisements as at least one of their

methods of job search, but that only 2.15 percent of the unemployed used this search method exclusively. The results for

selected countries are given in the following tabulation, which

lists the percent of total unemployment engaged in each of the

two activities shown:

Studied ads Studied ads only

France ........................... 73.14 0.15

Germany ....................... 37.53 .44

Italy .............................. 31.07 5.43

Netherlands .................. 0 0

Sweden ......................... 4.00 0

United Kingdom ........... 85.98 2.51

Clearly, there is a wide range in both categories within the

European Union. The United Kingdom had, by far, the largest

proportion (86 percent) of the unemployed who used reading

advertisements as a method of searching for a job, and Italy

had, by far, the largest proportion (5 percent) who used that

method exclusively. In France and Germany, significant proportions of the unemployed studied ads, but very few used

the method as their only way of looking for work.

The zero figures for the Netherlands and Sweden warrant

some explanation. The Netherlands survey continues to collect data on the main method of search only. The preceding

tabulation indicates that no unemployed person studied ads

as his or her main method of searching for a job; hence, none

used the method exclusively either. Only about 10 percent of

the Dutch unemployed replied that they inserted or answered

help-wanted ads as their main method of job search. This percentage indicates that use of the help wanted ads is low in the

Netherlands. As regards Sweden, only a very small proportion

of persons studied ads as one of their methods of search, and

none used it as their only method. Thus, no adjustment appears to be needed for these two countries on the passivesearch issue.

National data from a few countries help to corroborate the

1998 results from Eurostat. Special tabulations by the U.K.

Office for National Statistics for 1997 report that one-third of

Table 2. Adjustment of European Union data to U.S. concepts, spring 1998, all 15 EU countries and six selected EU countries

[Numbers in thousands]

 Item Source France Germany Italy Netherlands Sweden

Reported labor force .......................... Eurostat 169,408 25,568 39,393 22,915 7,742 4,333 28,661

Less 15-year-olds .......................... Eurostat 220 9 24 58 72 – –

Less unpaid family workers

working fewer than 15 hours

per week ....................................... Eurostat 362 35 129 29 19 8 58

Less career military ........................ Eurostat 436 – 228 4 33 15 –

Less other adjustments to

unemployment (net)1 ................... Eurostat 1,029 226 152 242 13 11 105

Adjusted civilian labor force .............. Eurostat 167,361 25,298 38,860 22,582 7,605 4,299 28,498

Reported unemployment .................... Eurostat 17,330 3,099 3,856 2,849 340 387 1,778

Less 15-year-olds .......................... Eurostat 57 2 2 21 19 – –

Less passive jobseekers ............... Eurostat 373 5 17 155 – – 45

Less those waiting to start

a new job ...................................... Eurostat2 430 185 75 59 10 5 36

Less those not available for work

in reference week ......................... Estimate3 347 62 77 57 7 8 36

Plus double-count adjustment ........ Estimate4 121 25 17 29 4 1 12

Plus layoffs .................................... Eurostat 177 15 7 56 – 9 34

Adjusted unemployment .................... ... 16,421 2,886 3,709 2,642 308 385 1,707

Unemployment rate (in percent):

Reported ......................................... ... 10.2 12.1 9.8 12.4 4.4 8.9 6.2

Adjusted to U.S. concepts ............. ... 9.8 11.4 9.5 11.7 4.0 8.9 6.0

Ratio of adjusted rate

to reported rate ......................... ... .96 .94 .98 .94 .92 1.00 .97

Current BLS adjusted rates ............. ... (5

) 12.1 9.8 12.5 4.4 9.0 6.2

Ratio of adjusted rate

to reported rate ......................... ... (5) 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.00

1 Net sum of passive jobseekers, those waiting to start a new job, those

not available for work in the reference week, and double-count adjustments.

Persons on layoff are already counted in the labor force and are deemed

employed.

2 Estimated as half of those reported as waiting to start a new job, in order

to eliminate those seeking work from the adjustment. 3

 Estimated as 2 percent of the unemployed.

4

 Estimated as 10 percent of the sum of the subtracted categories.

5 Not applicable; the Bureau does not adjust data for all 15 EU countries.

NOTE: Dash indicates negligible or nil.

SOURCES: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey Principal Results 1998, Theme

3, November 1999; unpublished results provided by Eurostat; and BLS adjustments.

United

Kingdom

All 15

EU countries
 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 13

the unemployed said that their main method of job search was

reading newspaper ads.22 Most persons, however, used more

than one job search method, and the average was four to five

methods. All of the other methods listed qualify as “active” in

the U.S. sense of the term. Studying advertisements was the

sole method of search for only 7 percent of those for whom it

was the main method. Overall, 2.4 percent of the unemployed

were in this “only passive search” category. This is about the

same proportion yielded by the 1998 Eurostat data. Further

corroboration from national data appears in an OECD paper on

methods of job search. The paper established that persons

using only passive methods amounted to 0.1 percent of the

unemployed in France and 1 percent in Norway.23 At the current time, national statistics for other EU countries are not available on the passive-search issue.

In table 2, the reported spring 1998 Eurostat data on the

percentage of persons studying newspaper ads as their sole

method of search is used to make the adjustment to exclude

passive jobseekers. Overall, this adjustment eliminates about

0.2 percentage point from the unemployment rate for the European Union. The magnitude of the adjustment is highest for

Italy, where 0.6 percentage point is subtracted from the unemployment rate. For the United Kingdom, 0.2 percentage point

is subtracted. For all the other EU countries examined in this

article, the impact of removing the passive jobseekers is practically nil.

Availability. The number of unemployed persons who were

not currently available for work in the reference week is difficult to estimate. Some indication of the order of magnitude is

available from the Danish labor force survey, which collects

information according to the period the person can start working (within 1 week, within 2 weeks, within 1 month, and so

forth). For 1998, Statistics Denmark reported that 96 percent

of the unemployed said that they would be available to work

within a week rather than within the 2 weeks allowed for being

classified as unemployed.24 Of course, “within a week” overlaps with, but goes beyond, “the reference week.” Therefore,

the figure obtained is not precisely the figure needed. In addition, under U.S. concepts, those temporarily ill or waiting to

start a new job should be considered unemployed even though

they are not currently available for work. A reasonable estimate, used in table 2, is that the impact is 2 percent of the

unemployed, resulting in a reduction of almost 0.2 percentage

point in the EU unemployment rate. This estimate is about the

same magnitude as the estimated impact of expanding the

availability window in the United States, discussed in a later

section.25

15-year-olds. Unpublished Eurostat data indicate that the

unemployment rate of 15-year-olds is high—about 25 percent—

but that the numbers of unemployed 15-year-olds are so small

that the overall EU unemployment rate is reduced by only 0.02

percentage point. The 1998 Netherlands rate, however, is more

visibly affected: the jobless rate declines by 0.2 percentage

point, from 4.4 to 4.2 percent, with the elimination of 15-yearolds from the rolls of the unemployed.

Waiting to start a new job. In the Eurostat survey, the number of persons waiting to start a new job amounts to 5.5 percent of total unemployment in 1998. There is no information as

to how many were seeking work, however, because this group

is not asked the question on job search. Assuming that half of

these persons should be excluded from the unemployed under

U.S. concepts because they were not actively seeking work in

the past 4 weeks, the estimated reduction in the EU unemployment rate would be about 0.2 percentage point. For France, the

adjustment on this point has a much larger impact. The reported unemployment rate of 12.1 percent is reduced to 11.5

percent when this group is subtracted. Possibly, the reason for

the relatively large number of such persons in France is that

the French survey asks a question directly about this issue

rather than relying on volunteered information.

Double-counting. Overall, the reductions in the EU unemployment rate total 0.6 percentage point (rounded). This figure is then adjusted slightly by adding back an estimated 10

percent of the sum of the downward adjustments to the unemployed, to take into account the possibility of double-counting

among the groups that were eliminated. (For example, a 15-yearold may also be a passive jobseeker.) This further adjustment

does not change the overall reduction of 0.6 percentage point.

Overall adjustment. On balance, the overall adjustment for

the European Union is 0.4 percentage point downward (up by

0.2, down by 0.6). Thus, the spring 1998 EU unemployment rate

of 10.2 is reduced to 9.8. Extrapolating from this result, the

annual average EU unemployment rate of 9.9 percent in 1998 is

reduced to 9.5 percent.

Europe’s 5.5-percentage-point gap with the United States,

obtained by using the current standardized rate in 1998, is reduced to 5.1 percentage points, explaining less than 10 percent of

the total gap. A large differential between the U.S. and Europe

remains unaccounted for by the measurement differences.

The overall small reduction in the EU unemployment rate

masks somewhat larger adjustments for particular countries.

Table 2 indicates that France’s unemployment rate falls from

12.1 percent to 11.4 percent with the additional adjustments,

mainly due to the adjustment to exclude persons waiting to

start a new job. The rate for the Netherlands declines from 4.4

percent to 4.0 percent, chiefly due to the exclusion of 15-yearolds. For Italy, the downward adjustment for passive job

searches is the main reason for the reduction of the rate from

12.4 percent to 11.7 percent. For Germany, Sweden, and the

United Kingdom, on the other hand, the adjustments have a

negligible impact.

The next-to-last line of table 2 also shows what the Eurostat
14 Monthly Labor Review June 2000

International Unemployment Rates

rates would be if only the adjustments the Bureau currently

makes were applied.26 The figures are virtually the same as the

reported rates, because the current BLS adjustments are so

small; they simply subtract the number of unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours and the number of career

military from the labor force. No adjustments are made in the

Eurostat unemployed.

U.S. rates under European concepts

Another way of looking at the comparison is to adjust U.S.

rates to European concepts. This is important in assessing the

comparative programs of the OECD and the ILO, which do not

currently adjust the unemployment data for the United States,

presenting them as comparable with data from the other OECD

countries. The following adjustments should be made to U.S.

data for greater comparability with Eurostat concepts:

Adjust U.S. rates upward by

• including passive jobseekers,

• loosening the current-availability requirement,

• including 15-year-olds, and

• removing the search requirement for persons waiting to

 start a new job.

Adjust U.S. rates downward by

• excluding persons on temporary layoff,

• including all career military in the denominator, and

• including unpaid family workers who worked fewer than

 15 hours per week in the denominator.

The upward adjustments are rooted in the following considerations.

Passive jobseekers. An unpublished BLS analysis (based on

1997 data) indicates that if passive jobseekers who were without work and available for work had been included in the unemployed, they would have composed about 3.4 percent of

total U.S. unemployment.27 Their inclusion would have increased the unemployment rate only marginally, by about 0.15

percentage point.

Availability. According to unpublished BLS tabulations, if

all persons who would have met the unemployment criteria

except for the fact that they were not available for work during

the reference week were added to the U.S. unemployed, the

rate would rise by 0.3 percentage point. The figure for those

who would be available within the 2-week Eurostat time frame

is likely to be lower. Persons who are temporarily ill or waiting

to start a new job are classified as unemployed by the CPS if

they are not currently available for work. In addition, the Canadian adjustment to remove from among the unemployed persons who are unavailable for work in the reference week because of personal or family responsibilities was only nil to 0.1

percentage point. An assumption of an increase of 0.1 percentage point in the U.S. rate for greater comparability with

Europe on the availability criterion thus seems reasonable.

15-year-olds. These young persons are enumerated by the

CPS, but are not included in the U.S. labor force. Unpublished

BLS data indicate that including 15-year-olds would raise the

unemployment rate by 0.08 percentage point.

Waiting to start a new job. Unpublished BLS data show that

the impact of adding to the unemployed persons waiting to

start a new job who are not seeking work would be even smaller

than adding 15-year-olds (0.05 percentage point).

Overall, the upward adjustments total 0.4 percentage point.

Because the groups are mutually exclusive, there is no need to

enter an adjustment for double-counting.

The downward adjustments are based on the following points.

Layoffs. The number of persons on temporary layoff in the

United States in 1998 made up 14 percent of total U.S. unemployment. Most likely, some of the Americans on layoff would be

classified as employed by Eurostat because they have a recall

date or an expectation of recall and they are not seeking work. BLS

tabulations indicate that approximately 40 percent of those classified as laid off said that they had been looking for work in the

previous 4 weeks. (It is not known how many were actively seeking work and how many were passively seeking work, because

no further inquiries were made into their job search.) Assuming

that the entire 40 percent were actively seeking work (and therefore should continue to be counted as unemployed), the adjustment removes 60 percent of those on layoff from the U.S. unemployed, lowering the U.S. rate by 0.38 percentage point.

Unpaid family workers and military personnel. The number of unpaid family workers working fewer than 15 hours is so

small as to have no impact, but including the Armed Forces in

the denominator would lower the U.S. rate slightly, by 0.04

percentage point.

Overall, the downward adjustments total 0.4 percentage

point, which is identical in magnitude to the upward adjustments. Thus, the U.S. unemployment rate of 4.5 percent in 1998

remains unchanged when EU concepts are applied.

Table 3 summarizes the adjustments of the spring 1998 European unemployment rate to U.S. concepts (derived from table

2) and the adjustment of the annual average 1998 U.S. rate to

European concepts, in terms of percentage points.

The outcome of the two modes of adjustment is given in the

following tabulation:
 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 15

 Unemployment rate

EU U.S.

EU concepts ......................... 10.2 4.5

U.S. concepts ..................... 9.8 4.5

U.S. rates under Canadian concepts

The following adjustments are made to fit the 1998 U.S. unemployment rate to Canadian concepts:

 Fraction of a

 percentage point

Passive jobseekers ................................. +0.146

15-year-olds .......................................... +0.080

Waiting to start new job ........................ +0.055

Availability criterion .............................. +0.050

Students ................................................. –0.100

Net adjustment ...................................... +0.2

The first three adjustments are the same as the previously

discussed adjustments of the U.S. rate to European concepts.

The adjustment for the difference in availability criterion is

different, however. Including among the unemployed persons

unavailable for work for personal or family reasons would raise

the U.S. rate by an estimated 0.05 percentage point—half the

magnitude, in terms of percentage points, of the availability

adjustment applied to European countries when one is adjusting their data to U.S. concepts.

An additional adjustment is needed to fit the U.S. treatment

of students to Canadian concepts. This adjustment subtracts

from the U.S. unemployed full-time students aged 16 to 24

years who are seeking full-time work. The adjustment is based

on unpublished data from the CPS that include “doesn’t matter” responses to the question whether the student is seeking

full- or part-time work. Statistics Canada does not use this

response category, but advised the Bureau that if it did, then

such persons would be classified together with students seeking full-time work. This adjustment results in a decrease of 0.1

percentage point in the U.S. unemployment rate. On balance,

all of the aforesaid adjustments raise the U.S. unemployment

rate by 0.2 percentage point. The 1998 Canada-U.S. comparisons yield the following results:

 United

 States

Unemployment rate, U.S. concepts .............. 7.5 4.5

Unemployment rate, Canadian concepts ...... 8.3 4.7

Applying U.S. concepts indicates that the gap between the

Canadian and American unemployment rates is 3.0 percentage

points. Under Canadian concepts, the gap is 3.6 percentage

points. The latter is closer to the gap (3.8 percentage points)

based on the unadjusted rates for each country.

Limitations of the analysis

The analysis presented in this article has several limitations.

First, in the case of Europe, the adjustments presented here are

based upon only 1 year: 1998. The Canadian study shows that

the impact of adjustments can change over time. Further, U.S.,

Canadian, and Eurostat definitions have changed over the

years, and such changes would have to be taken into account

in a historical analysis. For example, prior to 1994, the U.S.

treatment of persons waiting to start a new job was identical to

that of Canada and Eurostat, and adjustments would not need

to be made for that factor in those years.

Another limitation is that some of the data needed to make

the adjustments are not available in precisely the form required.

Unpublished tabulations fill a number of the gaps, but some

estimation is still involved regarding such factors as the impact of including or excluding passive jobseekers among the

unemployed, differences in the current-availability criteria, and

the treatment of layoffs.

Questions remain as to whether some of the adjustments

should be made at all. For instance, should adjustments be

made to add student jobseekers in with the unemployed for

Canada and Sweden when statistical offices in those countries

have omitted them on the grounds that their availability is

uncertain? Are U.S. and European layoffs so fundamentally

different that adjustments should not be made on their account? Are the adjustments to the U.S. age limit of 16 years

justified for all countries?

Unmentioned thus far in the analysis for lack of any factual

basis for adjustment are nonconceptual differences that could

Table 3. Fraction-of-a-percentage-point impact of two

modes of adjustment, 1998

Passive jobseekers ............................. –0.198 +0.146

Availability criterion ............................. –.184 +.100

15-year-olds ........................................ –.020 +.080

Waiting to start a new job .................... –.228 +.055

Double-count adjustment ..................... +.064 –

Subtotal ............................................... –.6 +.4

Layoffs ................................................ +.104 –.378

Unpaid family workers ......................... +.022 –

Military ................................................. +.026 –.040

Subtotal ............................................... +.2 –.4

Total adjustment .................................. –.4 0

NOTE: Dash indicates category not applicable.

SOURCES: Column 1 calculated from table 2, column 2 from unpublished

BLS data.

Spring

European

unemployment

rate to

U.S. concepts

Item

Annual

average

U.S.

unemployment

rate to

European

concepts

Canada
16 Monthly Labor Review June 2000

International Unemployment Rates

have an impact on the comparisons, but for which the direction of bias, if any, is unknown. Among these are such elements as the frequency and scope of surveys, the wording

and ordering of questions, proxy responses, and the survey’s

sample design and mode of data collection. National experiences with changes in these matters tell us that they can have

an influence on unemployment figures.28 Further, hidden or

illegal activities may not be captured in labor force surveys to

the same degree across countries. Clearly, any total accounting of country differences would have to consider all sources,

but this would, equally clearly, be beyond the scope of statistical inference. Data users should be cognizant of this realm of

nonconceptual differences.

Finally, the article does not cover two countries in the BLS

comparisons: Japan and Australia. In one BLS study, adjustments

for Japan covering the period 1984–92 tended to cancel out and

leave the official Japanese rate virtually unchanged under U.S.

concepts.29 But this work needs to be updated to the late 1990s

to see if the results have changed. Neither Japan nor Australia

includes passive jobseekers in the unemployed.

THE CURRENTLY PUBLISHED FOREIGN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES adjusted to U.S. concepts are imperfect, but further adjustments

can be made to bring them conceptually closer together. These

additional adjustments, however, do not change the main outcome of the current BLS comparisons. The analysis presented

in this article indicates that the U.S. unemployment rate in the

late 1990s really was lower than the European and Canadian

unemployment rates, whether looked at from U.S., Canadian,

or European concepts.

At some point, rates could converge to a greater extent,

and then the small adjustments discussed here would matter

in ranking countries by unemployment rate, especially for

Canada vis-à-vis the United States. With that possibility in

mind, later this year the Bureau plans to incorporate the adjustments to the Canadian unemployment rates from 1976

onward into its comparative series. Statistics Canada has

agreed to supply all the data needed on an ongoing basis.

The Bureau also is considering further adjustments to the

EU countries’ data. However, these adjustments are more difficult to make, and they also seem less necessary, given their

smaller impact. Yet the effects on the French, Italian, and Dutch

unemployment rates are probably significant enough to warrant adjustments. Further study is needed to see if adjustments are feasible, at least for 1994 onward, for the European

countries in the BLS comparisons program. 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This article was first presented as a paper in October

1999 at a conference on “Understanding Unemployment and Working

Time: A Cross-Country Comparative Study” in Bellagio, Italy. The

conference was organized by Barry Bluestone of Northeastern University in Boston and Antonio Lettieri of the Center for International

Social Studies in Rome, under grants from the Ford and Rockefeller

Foundations. The article has benefited greatly from the author’s association with the project. Members of country teams supplied information and comments on many aspects of the work.

In April 2000, the paper was presented at the annual meeting of the

OECD Working Party on Employment and Unemployment Statistics in

Paris. Comments from representatives of international organizations

and national statistical offices at that meeting have also informed the

work.

The author is grateful to the following individuals whose comments

enriched the article: Georges Lemaitre, OECD; Eivind Hoffmann and Sophia

Lawrence, ILO; Ana Franco, Eurostat; Sharon Cohany, Gary Martin,

Joyanna Moy, Anne Polivka, and Philip Rones, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and John E. Bregger, Bureau of Labor Statistics, retired.

Ana Franco and her colleagues at Eurostat supplied unpublished data

from the European Union labor force surveys; Anne Polivka of the

Bureau of Labor Statistics provided unpublished data from the U.S. Current Population Survey. Without their aid, the adjustments presented in

the article could not have been made.

Any errors that remain are the sole responsibility of the author.

1

 The BLS comparisons program does not adjust rates for Canada or

the European Union. Canada’s 8.3-percent rate is that country’s official

figure, and the 9.9-percent rate quoted for the European Union is based

upon the OECD Standardized Unemployment Rates program, derived from

Eurostat figures. Note also that the OECD does not adjust the U.S. unemployment rate for comparability with EU concepts.

2

 Explaining the non-measurement-related reasons for cross-country differences in unemployment is one of the main purposes of the

project titled “Understanding Unemployment and Working Time: A

Cross-Country Comparative Study,” being conducted under grants from

the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. See the acknowledgments for

more information.

3

 See tables 43 and 44 in the “Current Labor Statistics” section of

this issue of the Review. See also table 1 in the appendix to this article.

4

 Earlier work has already been done on Japan, but it will need to be

updated because of revisions made to U.S. definitions in 1994. For that

earlier work, see Sara Elder and Constance Sorrentino, “Japan’s low

unemployment: a BLS update and revision,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1993, pp. 56–63.

5 The recognition of the diversity in the uses of unemployment

data led Julius Shiskin, former Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, to formulate and introduce the range of labor market measures U–1 through U–7 in 1976. (See Julius Shiskin, “Employment and

unemployment: the doughnut or the hole?” Monthly Labor Review,

February 1976, pp. 3–10.) International comparisons based on U–1

through U–7 were published in Constance Sorrentino, “International

unemployment indicators, 1983–93,” Monthly Labor Review, August

1995, pp. 31–50. In October 1995, the Bureau introduced a revised set

of alternative measures in John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen, “BLS

introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures,” Monthly

Labor Review, October 1995, pp. 19–26.

6

 The latest ILO international definitions of unemployment were

adopted in October 1982 at the Thirteenth International Conference of

Labor Statisticians meeting in Geneva. The definitions represented an

update and clarification of standards set in 1954. For the text of the

1982 resolution, see the ILO Web site at http://www.ilo.org/public/

english/120stat/res/ecacpop.htm.
 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 17

7 The OECD Working Party on Employment and Unemployment

Statistics has been influential in harmonizing the interpretation of the ILO

guidelines among its member countries. In 1983, for example, the Working Party recommended that OECD countries fix the job search reference

period at 4 weeks. At that time, countries were using reference periods

varying from 1 week to 60 days. Since 1983, 4 weeks has become the

common job search period in most OECD countries, eliminating an important source of incompatibility in unemployment statistics.

8 BLS adjustment procedures are based upon data from the national

labor force surveys of Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Eurostat

data are used directly for France and Germany.

9

 Despite the preference for labor force survey data in international

comparisons, administrative data may be used as a component in the

generation of monthly comparative unemployment rates. For countries

that carry out only quarterly or annual surveys, comparative monthly

rates are produced from the monthly administrative data on registered

unemployment, adjusted by information from the labor force surveys.

This is the method currently used by the Bureau and Eurostat for France

and Germany, for example.

10 Reading job ads on the Internet is becoming a popular method of

searching for jobs in many countries. In the U.S. survey, such persons

would be treated in the same way as persons reading newspaper ads and

would not be counted as unemployed, unless they took a more active

step, such as submitting a job application.

11 The relevant Eurostat search category is “studied advertisements

in newspapers,” whereas Canada’s questionnaire uses “looked at job ads.”

12 Eurostat states in its definitions that “currently available” should

mean “available to start work within 2 weeks of the reference period.”

Further elaboration in explanatory notes reveals that this means “2

weeks from the day of the interview.” (See The European Union Labour

Force Survey: Methods and Definitions (Eurostat, 1996), pp. 13, 69.)

13 Information based on communication with Statistics Canada. (See

also “The UR gap—small differences in measurement may matter,” Labour

Force Update vol. 2, no. 4 (Statistics Canada, autumn 1998), p. 33.)

14 Information based on communication with Statistics Sweden.

15 The earlier adjustments were described in detail in International

Comparisons of Unemployment, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 1978).

16 See Joyanna Moy and Constance Sorrentino, “Unemployment,

labor force trends, and layoff practices in 10 countries,” Monthly Labor

Review, December 1981, pp. 3–13 (esp. pp. 8–11), for a discussion of

why the Bureau does not make adjustments for temporary layoffs in

other countries.

17 “The UR gap,” pp. 31–35.

18 U.S. definitions specify that, in order to be classified as unemployed, the person on layoff must expect to be recalled to the job in 6

months or the employer must have given the person a recall date. There

is no time restriction on the latter.

19 “Supplementary Measures of Unemployment,” Labour Force

Update, vol. 3, no. 3 (Statistics Canada, summer 1999), p. 32.

20 Lee Grenon, “Looking for Work,” in Perspectives on Labour and

Income (Journal of Statistics Canada), autumn 1998, pp. 22–25.

21 Labour Force Survey: Methods and Definitions, 1992 Series

(Eurostat, June 1992).

22 “Job Search Statistics: The U.K. Perspective” (no author listed),

paper presented at the July 6–7, 1998, meeting of the Paris Group on

Labour and Compensation, London.

23 Andrew Clark, “Methods of Jobsearch by the Unemployed in OECD

Countries,” paper presented at the 17th meeting of the Working Party on

Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Paris, April 22 and 23, 1999.

24 Communication from Statistics Denmark.

25 The estimated impact of expanding the current availability window in the United States is 0.1 percentage point, or 2 percent of the

unemployed.

26 The figures are hypothetical for Italy, Sweden, and the United

Kingdom, because the BLS adjustment procedure is not based on the

Eurostat data for these countries. Instead, the procedure uses the various

national labor force surveys. For France, Germany, and the Netherlands,

the procedure uses the Eurostat data in combination with OECD data.

27 Phil Rones, “Comparison of the Labor Market Outcomes of

Active and Passive Job Search,” paper presented at the July 6–7, 1998,

meeting of the Paris Group, London; see especially table 1. However, it

was difficult to identify all passive jobseekers, because there are many

paths through the CPS questionnaire and some passive jobseekers would

not have been presented with the question on current availability and

hence would not have been included in the tabulation.

28 For a discussion and assessment of the impact of the revised 1994

U.S. questionnaire, see Anne E. Polivka and Stephen M. Miller, “The

CPS after the Redesign: Refocusing the Economic Lens,” in John

Haltiwanger, Marilyn E. Manser, and Robert Topel (eds.), Labor Statistics Measurement Issues, National Bureau of Economic Research, Studies in Income and Wealth, vol. 60 (Chicago, University of Chicago

Press, 1998), pp. 249–89.

29 Elder and Sorrentino, “Japan’s low unemployment.”

Comparisons of unemployment rates across countries “approximating U.S. concepts” were first made on a regular basis by the

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, the Bureau) in the early 1960s.

During the late 1970s, the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD) entered the field, with its Standardized

Unemployment Rates (SURs) program; the Statistical Office of the

European Communities (Eurostat) began a monthly comparative

series in the mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the International Labor

Office (ILO) initiated a program of annual ILO-Comparable Unemployment Rates. All of these programs make adjustments in national data to a common conceptual base. The BLS program adjusts

such data to U.S. concepts, while the other three comparative programs adjust their data to ILO concepts, with some variations in

APPENDIX: The four programs compiling international comparisons of unemployment

interpretation. Exhibit A–1 (page 20) presents a synopsis of the

four series.

Rates based on the standardized data published by these four

organizations used to be quite different for some countries; in recent

years, however, the rates have converged to the point that they are

virtually identical.1 In late 1996, the OECD accepted the Eurostat

figures for the EU countries in its SURs series. The ILO-Comparable

series is meant to conform with the SURs, although the methodology

has not been fully implemented.2 The one remaining significant difference among the three series was removed in October 1999 when

the Bureau modified its comparative series for Germany to cover

unified Germany. Previously, the Bureau had maintained its series for

the former West Germany only.
18 Monthly Labor Review June 2000

International Unemployment Rates

Eurostat’s survey uses common definitions that are applied across

the EU countries. Like the Bureau, the OECD and the ILO adjust national

data for some, but not all, of the conceptual differences. All four

agencies adjust the Swedish data by adding the students who are

seeking work to the unemployed. Like the Bureau, the OECD and the

ILO do not adjust for the different treatments of current availability

and active job search. OECD’s SURs are on a “civilian labor force” basis,

but some career military remain in the figures for the EU countries.

The OECD makes no adjustment to exclude them. The ILO adjusts

national data, where relevant, to include all unpaid family workers

and all the Armed Forces (resident and stationed abroad) in the labor

force, unless the numbers are very small.

The latest tabulations of standardized BLS and OECD rates are

shown in tables A–1 and A–2. Because the OECD SURs are currently

identical to the Eurostat figures for the EU countries, there is no need

to show a separate Eurostat tabulation. The data from the ILOComparable series are not shown either, because, in theory, those

data correspond to the OECD SURs. There are some small differences,

however, in virtue of the ILO’s inclusion of all the Armed Forces in

the labor force denominator.

None of these organizations claim that perfect comparability has

been achieved; nevertheless, they assert that, for international comparisons, their adjusted series form a better basis for analysis than the

unadjusted national data available from each country.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

The BLS series is the longest in existence, but has the smallest coverage of countries among the comparative programs. Currently, 10

developed countries are included in the series. (See table A–1, which

excludes one of the countries, the Netherlands, for which data are

compiled only on an annual basis.) Companion variables, such as

employment ratios and participation rates, are published in a semiannual compendium of labor force statistics.3

The BLS series is expressed as “approximating U.S. concepts,” indicating some inexactitude in the figures. In its Handbook of Methods, the

Bureau acknowledges that there are differences for which no adjustments are made, most of which are very small in impact, but that the

differences in interpretation of what constitutes a job search for qualification for being classified as unemployed may be more significant.4

The BLS adjustment process works on national labor force surveys for Canada, Australia, Japan, Italy, Sweden, and the United

Kingdom. All of these countries have either monthly or quarterly

labor force surveys. For France, Germany, and the Netherlands, the

BLS adjustments proceed from data published by Eurostat and the

OECD, rather than from the national data. It is more convenient to

work from the international data for these countries for several

reasons. For instance, France and Germany conduct only annual

surveys, whereas the international organizations provide monthly

Table A-1. Unemployment rates in nine countries, civilian labor force basis, approximating U.S. concepts,

 seasonally adjusted, 1990–2000

 Canada Australia Japan France Germany1 Italy2 Sweden

1990 ................................ 5.6 8.1 6.9 2.1 9.1 5.0 7.0 1.8 6.9

1991 ................................ 6.8 10.3 9.6 2.1 9.6 3

5.6 3 6.9 3.1 8.8

1992 ................................ 7.5 11.2 10.8 2.2 310.4 6.7 7.3 5.6 10.1

1993 ................................ 6.9 11.4 10.9 2.5 11.8 7.9 3

10.2 9.3 10.5

1994 ................................ 3

6.1 10.4 9.7 2.9 12.3 8.5 11.2 9.6 9.7

1995 ................................ 5.6 9.4 8.5 3.2 11.8 8.2 11.8 9.1 8.7

1996 ................................ 5.4 9.6 8.6 3.4 12.5 8.9 11.7 9.9 8.2

1997 ................................ 4.9 9.1 8.6 3.4 12.4 9.9 11.9 10.1 7.0

1998 ................................ 4.5 8.3 8.0 4.1 11.8 9.3 12.0 8.4 6.3

I .................................... 4.7 8.6 8.1 3.7 12.0 9.8 11.8 8.8 6.4

II ................................... 4.4 8.3 8.0 4.2 11.7 9.5 12.0 8.7 6.3

III .................................. 4.5 8.2 8.1 4.3 11.7 9.1 12.0 8.5 6.3

IV .................................. 4.4 8.1 7.7 4.5 11.5 8.9 12.0 7.6 6.3

1999 ................................ 4.2 7.6 7.2 p

4.7 p11.1 p8.7 11.5 7.1 p6.1

I .................................... 4.3 7.9 7.5 4.7 11.3 8.9 11.9 7.2 6.3

II ................................... 4.3 7.8 7.4 4.8 11.2 8.8 11.6 6.9 6.1

III .................................. 4.2 7.6 7.1 4.8 11.0 8.8 11.6 7.0 5.9

IV .................................. 4.1 7.0 7.0 4.7 10.6 8.7 11.1 7.1 5.9

October ...................... 4.1 7.1 7.1 4.7 10.8 8.8 11.1 7.1 5.9

November ................... 4.1 6.9 6.8 4.6 10.6 8.7 – 7.2 5.9

December ................... 4.1 6.8 7.0 4.7 10.4 8.5 – 7.0 5.9

2000

I .................................... 4.1 6.8 6.8 4.9 10.0 8.4 11.3 6.9 –

January ...................... 4.0 6.8 6.9 4.7 10.3 8.4 11.3 6.9 –

February ..................... 4.1 6.8 6.7 4.9 10.0 8.4 – 6.9 –

March ......................... 4.1 6.8 6.9 5.0 9.8 8.4 – 6.8 –

1

 Unified Germany for 1991 onward. Prior to 1991, datea relate to the former

West Germany.

2

 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter.

United

Kingdom

United

States

Year and

quarter or

month

3

 Break in series. See notes in “Current labor statistics,” pp. 50–51, this

issue.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 5, 2000.

NOTE: Quarterly and monthly figures for France and Germany are calculated by applying annual adjustment factors to current published data

and therefore should be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment

under U.S. concepts than the annual figures. For further qualifications and

historical data, see “Comparative Civilian Labor Force Statistics, 10 Countries, 1959–1999,” April 17, 2000. = preliminary. Dash indicates data not

available.

P
 Monthly Labor Review June 2000 19

estimates of unemployment under ILO concepts. And although the

Netherlands conducts quarterly surveys, the national definitions

diverge substantially from ILO concepts.

The Bureau currently makes no adjustments to the Canadian

data, and few adjustments are made to the data for the five EU

countries covered in its program. The only adjustment the Bureau

makes to unemployment figures is a rather large increase in the

Swedish unemployed to add students seeking work and available for

work, who are not counted as unemployed in Sweden. In 1998,

when the national Swedish unemployment rate was 6.5 percent, the

Bureau raised it to 8.4 percent for comparability with U.S. concepts. (Eurostat makes a similar adjustment for Sweden.)

Eurostat

The EU labor force survey covers the 15 member countries.5 The

survey is a joint effort by member states to coordinate their national

surveys, which must also serve their own requirements. Many of

the variables of a full labor force survey are published.

The survey questionnaires are not harmonized, and the wording and

ordering of the questions differ. The Eurostat labor force survey is, in

effect, a retabulation of the data from national surveys under Eurostat

concepts. Generally, questions are added to the national survey instruments so that Eurostat concepts can be obtained. Despite close coordination, inevitably some differences in the surveys remain from country

to country. It is difficult for an outsider to assess the degree of comparability achieved by Eurostat, which has not publicly documented the

adjustments made to the national statistics. Eurostat states:

Perfect comparability among 15 countries is difficult to

achieve, even were it to be by means of a single direct survey,

i.e. a survey carried out at the same time, using the same

questionnaire and a single method of recording. Nevertheless,

the degree of comparability of the EU labor force survey results is considerably higher than that of any other existing set

of statistics on employment and unemployment available for

Member States.6

Because of its unique ability to harmonize the EU country statistics,

Eurostat is in a better position than the Bureau, the OECD, or the ILO

to claim that its adjusted unemployment rates are closely comparable with each other. Also, the Bureau, the OECD, and the ILO must

contend with comparing the Eurostat data with data from countries

that are outside the European Union.

OECD SURS

OECD SURs cover 24 of the organization’s 29 member countries, including several Eastern European countries in transition. (See table

A–2.) A full array of comparative variables is not yet part of the

SURs program. Only breakdowns of unemployment by sex are published.

The SURs are presented as rates that “are more comparable between countries than the unemployment rates published in national

sources.”7 The OECD notes that the Eurostat rates it adopted in 1996

are “based on slightly different data and methodology compared to

the former standardized rates that were calculated by the OECD.”8

Currently, the OECD makes no adjustments to the U.S. or the Canadian unemployment rate.

In its SURs press releases, OECD states that data for non-EU countries “have been adjusted when necessary, and as far as [they] allow,

to bring them as close as possible to ILO (and Eurostat) guidelines for

international comparisons of labour force statistics.”

ILO-Comparable series

The ILO-Comparable series is unique in its coverage of both developed and developing countries. Currently, 32 countries are in the

database, but data are published for only 24.9

The ILO claims that its data are consistent with the ILO guidelines

for the measurement of employment and unemployment, “except

where adjustments are negligible and therefore can be disregarded.”10

The program depends on national statistical offices to supply the

data needed for adjustments. The ILO states,

The impact of adjustments which appear necessary is looked

at together with the total effect on the direction of the resulting labor force estimates and unemployment rates. Adjustments are only recommended when it is clear that the factors

they address are important; not where their impact is marginal, or tends to cancel out in combination with one or more

other factor(s).

Table A-2. OECD standardized unemployment rates,

 May 2000 release 

[Percent of civilian labor force unemployed]

Total OECD1 .............. 7.4 7.1 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.6

Canada ................. 9.1 8.3 7.6 7.6 7.0 6.8

United States ....... 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1

Japan ................... 3.4 4.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8

Australia ............... 8.5 8.0 7.2 7.1 6.7 6.7

New Zealand ......... 6.7 7.4 6.8 6.8 6.3 –

Austria .................. 4.4 4.5 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5

Belgium ................. 9.4 9.5 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6

Czech Republic .... 4.8 6.5 8.8 9.0 9.2 –

Denmark ............... 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.9

Finland .................. 12.6 11.4 10.2 10.0 10.1 10.4

France .................. 12.3 11.8 11.3 11.2 10.8 10.4

Germany ............... 9.9 9.4 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.4

Hungary ................ 8.9 8.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 –

Ireland .................. 9.9 7.6 5.8 5.7 5.3 5.0

Italy ...................... 11.7 11.9 11.4 11.2 11.1 –

Luxembourg .......... 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2

Netherlands .......... 5.2 4.0 3.3 3.3 2.8 –

Norway ................. 4.1 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.7 –

Poland .................. 11.2 10.6 – –– –

Portugal ................ 6.8 5.2 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2

Spain .................... 20.8 18.8 15.9 15.6 15.2 15.0

Sweden ................. 9.9 8.3 7.2 7.1 6.8 6.5

Switzerland ........... 4.2 3.5 – –– –

United Kingdom .... 7.0 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.9 –

Fifteen EU

 countries ............. 10.6 9.9 9.2 9.1 8.9 8.8

1 Only the countries listed are included.

NOTE: The standardized unemployment rates for the European Union

(EU) member countries are from Eurostat. The OECD is responsible for the

calculation of the standardized unemployment rates for the non-EU countries.

The latter have been adjusted when necessary and as far as the data allow,

to bring them as close as possible to ILO (and Eurostat) guidelines for international comparisons of labor force statistics. The standardized rates are,

therefore, more comparable between countries than the unemployment rates

published in national sources. Dash indicates data not available.

SOURCE: OECD News Release, Standardised Unemployment Rates,

May 12, 2000.

Quarterly data

(seasonally adjusted)

Country 1997 1998 1999 1999 2000,

first

quarter

Third

quarter

Fourth

quarter
20 Monthly Labor Review June 2000

International Unemployment Rates

The decision to adjust or not is agreed upon together with the

national statistical offices.

One of the premises of the ILO-Comparable program is that its

data conform with the OECD’s SURs. The program was designed

that way to avoid the dissemination of dissimilar “comparable”

statistics for the same countries. Since the autumn of 1996, however, when the OECD adopted the Eurostat methodology and rates,

the ILO and OECD figures have begun to diverge. The main divergence is that the ILO continues to include the Armed Forces in the

denominator of the unemployment rate calculation. The two organizations were to renew their collaboration in order to resolve

the differences.

Notes to the appendix

1

 Differences are generally on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 percentage

point and are due to whether the Armed Forces are included or excluded and to technical factors, such as the method of interpolation

and updating.

2

 See Sophia Lawrence, “ILO-Comparable annual employment and

unemployment estimates (1999),” ILO Bulletin of Labour Statistics, 1999–

3, pp. XII–XIII.

3

 The compendium is available at the Web site noted in exhibit A-1.

4 Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2490 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,

April 1997), pp. 112–13.

5

 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,

Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,

and the United Kingdom.

6 The European Union Labour Force Survey: Methods and Definitions (Eurostat, 1996), pp. 11–12.

7

 See note, table A–2.

8

 “Standardized Unemployment Rates,” OECD Quarterly Labour

Force Statistics, second quarter 1999, p. 134.

9

 The 24 countries for which data are published are Australia,

Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia,

Ireland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand,

Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore,

Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States.

10 ILO Bulletin, p. XI.

Exhibit A–1. Four standardized series on unemployment

 Category BLS OECD Eurostat ILO

Name of series Unemployment Rates Standardized Unemployment Harmonized ILO-Comparable

Approximating Rates (SURs) Unemployment Rates Unemployment

U.S. Concepts Rates

First published Early 1960s Early 1980s Late 1980s Late 1980s

Beginning year of data 1959 1974; 1982 for EU countries 1982 1981

Periodicity Annual, quarterly, and Annual, quarterly, and Annual, quarterly, Annual only

monthly monthly and monthly

Conceptual basis U.S. concepts General ILO concepts; Own interpretation ILO concepts;

Eurostat interpretation of ILO concepts accepts OECD

for EU SURs

Labor force basis Civilian Civilian, but EU countries Civilian, but includes Total, including all

use Eurostat basis career military living members of Armed

in private households Forces, both

regular and

temporary

Number of countries 10 24 15 32 in database,

24 published

Other variables Age-sex unemployment Unemployment rate by sex All variables of a full Age-sex unemployrates, participation rates, labor force survey ment rates,

employment ratios, participation rates,

employment by sector employment

by sector

Web site http://stats.bls.gov/fls http://www.oecd.org/news_ http://europa.eu.int/en/ http://

data.htm and_events/new-numbers/ home.htm (click on laborsta.ilo.org

press releases for latest)