Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 

Comparisons of Hours Worked

International comparisons of hours 

worked: an assessment of the statistics

A study of 13 countries reveals that measures of hours worked

based on administrative sources are relatively low while measures 

based on establishment and labor force surveys are relatively high;

thus, although ever improving, these measures cannot yet be taken

at face value and are useful only for broad comparisons

Susan E. Fleck

Susan E. Fleck is Chief, Division of Major Sector Productivity, Office of Productivity 

and Technology, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. This article 

was prepared when she was 

a supervisor in the Division 

of International Labor Comparisons. E-mail: fleck.susan@

bls.gov

Public commentators, the press, and 

governments are interested in the 

hours people work. Work hours underpin productivity measures. The number 

of hours individuals work stimulates debate 

on the quality of life in an international 

context: do some societies live to work 

while others work to live? The differences 

in hours worked between countries fuels discussion of economic growth, employment, 

and unemployment. Any comparative measure between countries, however, depends on 

a standardization of concepts, sources, and 

methods. Measuring and comparing how 

many hours people spend at work across 

countries is not an exact science, despite 

recent improvements in methodology and 

data coverage.

The recommendation from the International Labor Organization (ILO) is to 

use actual hours worked, including annual 

hours actually worked, as the basis for international comparisons. The recommendation to include annual hours actually 

worked was part of an updated ILO resolution regarding the measurement of working 

time that was adopted at the International 

Conference of Labor Statisticians held in 

the fall of 2008. Background research on 

working time and hours worked carried out 

by international statistical organizations 

and national statistical agencies to prepare for 

the conference has contributed to a rich debate 

on hours worked.

This article benefits from the recent exchange 

of ideas leading up to the 2008 Conference and 

looks at two data sets on hours worked. The 

better known of the two is the Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development 

(OECD) data set on average annual hours actually worked, for all employed persons, for 30 

countries, published in the annual OECD Employment Outlook.

1

 The second data set is the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) underlying 

hours and employment data in the annual report, “Gross Domestic Product per Employed 

Person,” which presents an international comparison of gross domestic product (GDP) per 

hour worked for 13 countries. The OECD data 

set provides an explicit measure of average annual hours worked, while the BLS data set publishes total employment and hours, from which 

a series for average annual hours worked can be 

derived. Both hours-worked data series complement output and productivity data published by 

the respective organizations.

Whereas data users tend to look at the 

number of average hours worked per year 

when making comparisons between countries, 

both BLS and OECD caution that such comparisons are prone to error and that the data 

series best describe changes over time. This 
Comparisons of Hours Worked

 Monthly Labor Review • May 2009

article provides some context and explanations for the 

data user on why these comparisons are fraught with difficulty. It considers how concepts, sources, and methods 

used to construct hours-worked data series affect analyses of data levels and trends. The differences between the 

BLS and OECD data sets discussed here highlight a major 

theme of the article, namely, that the estimate of average annual hours actually worked per employed person is 

just that—an estimate—and it may vary with the sources 

and methods used. Nonetheless, trends are similar. Finally, 

the article explains why small differences in hours worked 

between countries have little meaning, whereas large differences are more likely to be meaningful.

The countries studied are the United States, Canada, 

Japan, South Korea, and nine European countries: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Both BLS

and OECD data sets depend on a variety of data sources 

and concepts used to measure and estimate hours worked. 

The 13 countries considered here represent a wide variety of developed economies. Additional data used in this 

article come from special studies by the OECD and the 

ILO, as well as from studies by researchers and national 

statistical agencies. When time series are used, data begin 

with 1980 where available. For both data sets, pre-1991 

data for Germany are estimated. 

The analysis begins with an explanation of various concepts and sources underpinning hours worked and of their 

uses and limitations in preparing data series on average annual hours actually worked. This explanation establishes the 

framework for discussing methods of estimation of average 

annual hours actually worked and for describing the BLS

and OECD data sets, including breaks in series. The levels 

and trends for each country are compared with the use of a 

rank von Neumann test, to show how trends can be similar, 

although levels differ. With this background, the historic 

trends in the two data series are compared over a quartercentury whenever data are available. Furthermore, changes 

in the labor market that influence hours worked, such as 

an expansion of part-time and women’s employment, also 

will be examined. A short overview of changes in laws and 

norms helps put the trends in context. Comparisons are 

made between sources for the same country and between 

countries using similar methodologies. Comparisons between Japan and the United States and between Norway 

and Sweden highlight discrepancies in levels due to differences in sources and methods. The comparisons are intended to provide the data user with a better understanding 

of the interplay among concepts, sources, and methods and 

how they affect the comparisons.

There are a number of explanatory factors underlying 

the differences in hours worked across countries, such as 

institutional, legal, and policy differences. Only institutional and legal factors specific to the regulation of normal 

hours of work will be addressed in this article; the other 

factors are beyond the scope of the analysis. Furthermore, 

with the recent passage of the revised ILO resolution on 

working time, the concepts underlying hours worked have 

expanded to provide more detail. This study was prepared 

before the 2008 ILO resolution on working time was finalized and took effect; thus, the concepts presented are 

based on the original ILO resolution.

Hours of work: concepts and sources 

Concepts. Resolutions passed by the tripartite meeting 

of the International Conference of Labor Statisticians 

establish recommendations for countries to develop data 

with enough similarities to be suitable for international 

comparisons. The October 1962 ILO “Resolution concerning statistics of hours of work” provides guidance on 

concepts and measurement relating to hours of work and 

on a basic framework for collecting and analyzing data on 

hours. The resolution establishes three concepts of hours 

of work: “normal hours of work,” “hours actually worked,” 

and “hours paid.”2 Another concept often used in data collection is “usual hours of work.” Note that “hours worked” 

refers to measured, or actual, hours, whereas “hours of 

work” refers to scheduled, or planned, hours.

The box on page 5 lists the components of working 

time, based on the 1962 resolution. Items 1 through 6 

comprise one or more of the hours concepts mentioned in 

this article. Items 7 and 8 are generally accepted as hours 

not at work.

Normal hours of work are the maximum number of hours 

worked beyond which an employer must pay an overtime 

premium. This concept is partially addressed in item 1 in 

the box. Normal hours may be fixed by legislation or established by collective-bargaining agreements, depending 

on the country, industry, and occupation. The vast majority 

of countries in the world have a normal workweek of 40 or 

more hours. In the United States, the normal workweek 

is 40 hours. In Europe, the normal workweek is usually 

less than 40 hours and ranges widely by industry or occupation both within and between countries. For example, 

earlier this decade, the normal workweek was 29 hours 

for Volkswagen production workers in Germany, but now 

it is 33 hours; in France, the normal workweek has been 

35 hours for almost all employees for the past 10 years; 

and in the Netherlands, the normal workweek can be as 
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 

many as 60 hours for some workers for short periods.3 

Some people call normal hours of work “hypothetical,” in 

that they measure the ideal work schedule, not the observable work schedule. On a practical level, employers often 

arrange work schedules to keep employees’ hours at or 

below the normal-hour threshold, in order to avoid paying overtime wage rates. Data sources for normal hours 

of work are derived from the aforementioned legislation 

and collective-bargaining agreements and cover predominantly employees.

The concept of hours actually worked encompasses all 

hours spent working, including overtime hours and excluding absences; these are items 1 through 5 in the box.4 The 

concept excludes items 6 through 8—that is, hours paid 

but not worked, such as paid leave, paid public holidays, 

and paid sick leave, as well as meal breaks and commuting time. As part-time work has become more prevalent, 

workers’ hours are less than the normal workweek, but 

are still counted in item 1. Although not explicitly stated 

in the resolution, hours actually worked are commonly 

counted as both paid and unpaid hours at work. Data on 

hours actually worked are collected from household-based 

surveys, such as labor force surveys and time-use surveys; 

establishment surveys report data using other hours concepts, which can be adjusted to an actual-hours concept. 

Hours actually worked usually are reported on a person 

basis (but can be adjusted to a jobs basis), account for the 

total hours individuals work on all jobs in a given reference period, and generally include both persons working 

part time and persons working full time. Yearly estimates 

usually are calculated to reflect a full-year worker (that is, 

someone who works throughout the year). 

The hours paid concept is described in the 1962 resolution, 

but is not identified as a concept amenable to international 

comparison. Hours paid generally include items 1 through 

5 in the accompanying box and exclude unpaid overtime. 

Hours paid also include item 6: holidays, vacation, and sick 

leave. Depending on the terms of the employment contract, 

items 7 and 8—meal breaks and commuting time—also 

may be included in the hours-paid concept. Wide variations across countries persist regarding how workers are 

paid for holidays and nonwork time, particularly sick leave. 

These differences are the primary reason that international 

comparisons of hours paid are not made.

Usual hours of work are not addressed in the 1962 ILO

resolution on hours, but are included in the 2008 resolution. Usual hours of work are hours that are typical of a 

certain length of time, such as a day, a week, or a month.5

The concept encompasses the same components as hours 

actually worked, but refers only to regularly scheduled 

hours. Data on usual hours of work commonly refer to 

the usual work schedule during a week or month and are 

most commonly collected from household surveys. Some 

establishment surveys collect data on contractual hours, 

which are usual hours of work expected to be fulfilled under individual employment agreements. These contractual 

hours are analogous to normal hours under collective-bargaining agreements.6

1. Hours actually worked during normal periods of 

work.

2. Time worked in addition to hours worked during normal periods of work and generally paid at higher 

rates than normal rates (overtime).

3. Time spent at the workplace on work such as 

preparation of the workplace, repairs and maintenance, 

preparation and cleaning of tools, and preparation of 

receipts, timesheets, and reports.

4. Time spent at the workplace waiting or standing 

by for such reasons as lack of work, breakdown of maComponents of working time

chinery, and accidents, or time spent at the workplace 

during which no work is done, but for which payment is 

made under a guaranteed employment contract.

5. Time corresponding to short rest periods at the 

workplace, including tea and coffee breaks.

6. Hours paid for, but not worked, such as paid annual leave, paid public holidays, and paid sick leave.

7. Meal breaks.

8. Time spent on travel from home to work and from 

work to home.
Comparisons of Hours Worked

 Monthly Labor Review • May 2009

Sources of hours data. A number of sources are used to 

capture the hours concepts described in the previous section. For each hours concept, certain sources of data are 

preferred over others because they provide a better measure of the concept. In the context of creating a comparable 

international measure of average annual hours worked, 

each source has its benefits and drawbacks. The chief issues to address in determining the best concept and source 

of hours to use in estimating average annual hours worked 

are (1) how well the data collected capture the concept of 

hours actually worked and (2) what additional data sources have to be used to create the annual estimate, because 

of either measurement issues or coverage issues. The main 

concern is whether the source covers detailed industries, 

all types of workers, and the total economy.

1. Administrative data sources. Data on normal hours of 

work are available through administrative data sources. 

The primary purpose of such data often is to manage 

programs, not to collect statistics. Administrative data are 

collected by social programs, ministries, or local, regional, 

and national governments. In addition to covering legislation or collective-bargaining agreements on normal hours, 

administrative data may cover the use of public services 

(such as registering in employment offices or being paid 

sick leave), labor code enforcement, or tax collection. Administrative data also provide information on hours not 

worked, particularly in countries where paid leave is centrally administered, such as Sweden and Norway.

The advantage of an administrative source for data on 

normal hours is its potentially wide population coverage 

in those countries with large numbers of employees working under collective-bargaining agreements. European 

countries have high rates of union coverage and, in some 

cases, have passed legislation that extends the benefits 

agreed upon in collective-bargaining contracts to workers who are not union members.7

 These countries collect 

large amounts of data in administrative databases because 

they have active social programs and wide-ranging labor 

regulations. Still, administrative data from collective-bargaining agreements, though a common source of data on 

normal hours for different occupations, industries, and regions, are not the only source: establishment surveys, such 

as those conducted in France, also may provide information on normal hours of work.

Of course, there are limitations on administrative data 

as a source of information on hours. First, the wide range 

of administrative data on job or labor conditions that 

provides information on normal hours may exclude some 

workers, such as part-time workers, workers not covered 

by collective-bargaining agreements, and the self-employed. For example, in France, small and medium-sized 

businesses together account for one-fourth of employees, 

but those employees are not subject to the general limitation of a normal 1,600-hour work year. Thus, if normal 

hours were to be the basis of an annual measure of hours 

actually worked for all employed, the additional hours 

worked by employees in small and medium-sized businesses would be excluded.8

 Also, administrative data are 

collected by job and not by person, so additional information would be required to account for multiple jobholders 

if hours worked were to be estimated by person.

Because of limitations on concepts and data sources 

of normal hours, estimates of annual hours worked based 

on these sources are likely to be undercounted. Normal 

hours do not provide a total-economy measure of hours 

worked without adjustments that expand coverage to 

all employed persons and all industries. The nature of 

the data sources—collective-bargaining agreements and 

other sources of regulated normal hours—guarantees 

that overtime hours worked are not counted. Thus, estimates of hours actually worked will be biased downwards. As an example, some countries covered in the BLS

and OECD data sets base their measure of average annual 

hours worked on normal hours and deduct all paid annual 

leave and allowable sick leave. This estimation technique 

undercounts hours.

2. Survey-based data. Survey-based data have an advantage over administrative data covering normal hours 

of work, in that surveys provide reports of hours actually 

worked by individuals and count persons employed or jobs. 

Data are reported from either individuals or businesses on 

their actual labor market behavior, not on their expected 

behavior. Labor force surveys collect data on weekly or 

daily actual or usual hours worked (or both). Establishment surveys generally collect either weekly or monthly 

hours data on an hours-paid concept. Advantages and 

limitations exist with the data provided by each of these 

types of surveys. 

a. Household surveys. Data on actual or usual hours 

worked are collected from household surveys such as labor 

force surveys and time-use surveys, the latter being more 

irregular and with a smaller sample size. Data on hours 

actually worked and usual hours of work are reported on 

an employed-person basis and account for the total hours 

individuals, including both full- and part-time workers, 

work on all jobs in the reference period.

The two major advantages of labor force survey data 
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 

are the ability to report hours actually worked, including 

paid and unpaid overtime, and the broad coverage of the 

employed. The concept of hours actually worked captures 

the variability and irregularity of the number of hours a 

person works and does not work in a given week or other 

period, and it can account for shortened workweeks, overtime hours, holidays, sick leave, and vacation. Of course, 

the concept of usual hours of work also captures paid and 

unpaid overtime, as long as the overtime hours are a regular part of the work schedule. The problem is that usual 

hours of work do not fluctuate as much as hours actually 

worked and do not capture that variability, because they 

exclude irregular hours not worked, irregular overtime, 

and short-time work (temporary reductions in the regular 

workweek). Regarding coverage of the employed, the nature of a labor force survey is to reach into all households 

with all types of workers. Thus, labor force surveys provide 

coverage of the self-employed and unpaid family workers, 

both of whom are excluded in data on normal hours of 

work.

There are a couple of limitations, however, to using labor 

force survey data for comparisons of hours worked. First, 

data collection that is not ongoing (that is, discontinuous 

data collection) can affect the accuracy of data on both 

hours actually worked and hours not worked. Because of 

this problem, European Union member countries recently 

have moved toward ongoing data collection; hence, their 

estimates of average annual hours actually worked are 

based on 52 weeks of the year. But most other developed 

countries collect data on a discontinuous, albeit regular, 

basis. By its nature, discontinuous data collection, such as 

one week a month or one week a quarter, does not account 

for unexpected irregularities in hours worked and hours 

not worked—for example, hours not worked on holidays, 

in bad weather, or because of school closings. Adjustments 

are made to account for hours not worked, but these adjustments themselves are variable across countries, within 

a country, and across years, as well as by region or even occupation and industry. It is likely that, as labor force surveys in the European Union and elsewhere expand coverage to all months of the year and all weeks of a month, and 

as questions and data collection on hours actually worked 

and hours not worked become more precise, some of these 

inconsistencies will diminish.

A second common concern regarding labor force surveys 

is the issue of reliability. Labor force surveys depend on 

respondent recall and proxy responses; accordingly, survey 

respondents often do not reliably report their own hours 

worked and hours not worked, because they are relying on 

faulty memory, and neither do proxy respondents report 

such hours reliably, because they lack information about 

the intended respondent. In essence, in a labor force survey 

hours actually worked are not observed, but are reported, 

and people can forget the hours they actually worked.

Nonetheless, past concerns over respondent error in 

labor force surveys seem to be less of a problem than 

previously thought.9 The advent of time-use surveys has 

led to research that sheds light on comparisons between 

short-term recall of hours worked and longer term recall 

used in household surveys. For example, comparisons between the 1998 Canadian Labor Force Survey and Time 

Use Survey found that, overall, average numbers of hours 

worked are similar between the two surveys.10 One U.S. 

study showed that time-use survey responses accurately 

reflect hours worked when the data are collected in or 

near the reference period, but that hours are reported at a 

level 5 percent lower when data are collected during later 

weeks.11 Concerns remain over proxy responses. 

Finally, a more theoretical concern regarding the use of 

hours data from labor force surveys in productivity comparisons is the need to convert the data from a national 

economy concept to a domestic economy concept consistent with national accounts measures.12 In small countries, 

such as Belgium, where residents cross national borders 

to work, employment data from the household, or labor 

force, survey may not be a corresponding measure of those 

employed in a country’s production of output, thus affecting the corresponding hours measure.

b. Establishment surveys. Data on hours paid are collected from establishment surveys. The purpose of such 

surveys is to collect data on hours, earnings, number of 

employees, compensation, and other labor characteristics 

of firms and their workers. Establishment surveys have at 

least three advantages. First, the data are deemed reliable, 

because they are extracted from payroll information and 

are considered more precise than data based on individual 

recall.13 Second, industry coverage and classification also 

are deemed reliable. This is because establishment survey 

data often are collected at a detailed industry level, generally complement national accounts output data, and thus 

also complement industry productivity analysis. Finally, in 

some countries, such as the United States, establishment 

survey sample frames are much larger and cover far more 

workers than labor force surveys can cover.

The limitations on establishment survey data for hours 

measures are at least fourfold. First, the concept of hours 

paid typically does not report hours actually worked. 

Rather, it includes hours paid and worked, such as the 

regular workweek and paid overtime; and hours paid, but 
Comparisons of Hours Worked

 Monthly Labor Review • May 2009

not worked, such as paid vacation, sick leave, and maternity leave. Second, both the practice and reporting of 

the collection of data on hours paid differ widely across 

countries, making comparisons difficult. In some countries, such as Norway, benefits for sick leave or maternity 

leave are paid by a government or a union, so the hourspaid data from establishment survey sources exclude these 

benefits; in other countries, such as the United States, paid 

sick leave is a benefit offered by many employers, so it is 

counted as hours paid. It is difficult to account for these 

differences in creating comparative measures of hours 

paid between countries. Third, survey coverage is limited 

to employees, and only to certain types of employees. Historically, establishment survey data have been collected on 

production workers and have excluded supervisory, temporary, or part-time employees. Only in the recent past 

have establishment surveys expanded their coverage to 

include supervisory employees. Needless to say, data on 

self-employed and unpaid family workers must be found 

to complement establishment survey data on employees. 

Fourth, in establishment surveys, industry coverage, although complementary to data found in national accounts, 

may not be representative of all industries. The focus of 

data collection by establishment surveys always has been 

the manufacturing sector, although countries have been 

expanding coverage to include the service sector.

Without adjustment, hours-paid data from establishment surveys do not provide a total-economy measure of 

hours actually worked that covers all employed persons in 

all industries. Depending on the adjustment, the estimate 

may over- or underestimate hours actually worked: on the 

one hand, hours-paid data that are not adjusted for paid 

leave will overstate the estimate of hours actually worked; 

on the other hand, hours-paid data that are adjusted to 

the hours-worked concept by means of administrative or 

legislative leave data may understate hours worked if the 

adjustment assumes that employees take all leave that is 

offered them.

These concepts and sources of hours worked are the 

building blocks for the analysis in the next section, which 

addresses issues related to constructing a series of average 

annual hours actually worked and examines two data sets 

from the BLS and the OECD.

Estimating and comparing hours actually worked

In recent years, statistical reporting and measurement 

have focused on how to create comparable series of average annual hours actually worked. The reasons are twofold. First, if hours worked are to be used as a comparative quality-of-life indicator, they are best measured over 

a year, to reflect vacation time and other absences from 

work. Second, demand has grown for measures of annual 

hours in order to estimate an economy’s total productivity. 

Average annual hours actually worked per capita provides 

a broad measure of labor utilization, broken down into 

three components in a recent OECD study: the “intensive,” 

or individual, component of average annual hours actually 

worked per employed person, the “extensive,” or economywide, component of the employment-population ratio, 

and a demographic factor.14 Unless otherwise stated, the 

rest of this article considers instead the narrower, “intensive,” measure of average annual hours actually worked per 

employed person—that is, the hours of labor that workers 

actually put in on the job.

In 2003, the 17th general report by the International 

Conference of Labor Statisticians highlighted the need to 

revise existing international recommendations on “hours 

actually worked during short as well as longer reference 

periods” and suggested that such measures “be broadened to cover all persons in employment, including the 

self-employed, by extending the content of each of the 

defining categories of working time to include all work 

situations, such as irregular, seasonal, work at home, and 

unpaid work.”15 Furthermore, the report suggests “the development of an international definition of annual hours 

of work that allows for alternative estimation procedures 

that take into account variations in the type and range of 

national statistics of working time.”16

This section looks at the methodologies used to prepare 

measures of average annual hours actually worked per employed person and the data sets underlying the published 

measures. The analysis begins with an overview of the 

concepts and sources used in the BLS and OECD data sets, 

followed by a comparison of differences in the estimates 

of average annual hours actually worked per employed 

person in each data set, for each of the 13 countries examined. A statistical test comparing trends between the two 

data sets shows that the trends diverge for only 3 of the 

13 countries examined: the United States, France, and the 

Netherlands. The analysis undertaken supports the perspective of the statistical organizations that hours data are 

best analyzed as trends and not as levels. 

Data sources and country methodology. As countries move 

toward adopting a national accounts framework to measure labor input, or hours worked, concepts across countries 

are becoming more consistent. It is the source of data and 

the methodology used, rather than the concepts employed, 

that are at the heart of the comparability issue.
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009

As Gerard Ypma and Bart van Ark attest in their 

2006 analysis of the OECD/Eurostat country survey on 

employment and hours for national accounts, a country’s 

data sources and data priorities determine the methodology that the country uses to prepare an estimate of hours, 

employment, and, eventually, average annual hours actually 

worked per employed person. The direct method of estimation is based on sources that capture hours actually worked, 

whereas the component method is used to convert normal, 

paid, or usual hours worked to an hours-actually-worked 

concept.17

Exhibits 1 and 2 together provide a snapshot of the BLS

and OECD data sets through 2006, the concept of hours, 

the sources of hours and employment, and—where information was available—the adjustments to concepts made 

for each data set.18 Ypma and van Ark’s analysis gives detail 

where information is lacking. The general term “national 

accounts concept of hours worked” refers to the 1993 System of National Accounts measure of labor inputs, which in 

turn refers to the ILO resolution on hours actually worked.19 

Individual countries may adopt measures that include any 

number of original sources and related concepts of hours 

and employment, and, as necessary, may subsequently adjust them to expand coverage to all employed persons, to 

convert measures of paid, normal, or usual hours to hours 

actually worked, or to include industrial sectors that are 

otherwise excluded from a survey.20

An important detail of the two tables is the unit of measure of hours. Whether that unit of measure—that is, the average annual hours actually worked—is applied per employed 

person, per job, or on the basis of full-time equivalents—creates differences between levels of data. Because one person 

can hold more than one job, the average hours worked per 

employed person will be greater than the average hours 

worked per job. The concept of full-time equivalent workers consolidates hours worked by part-time workers into a 

measure of hours that approximates the hours worked by 

a full-time employed person working a normal workweek. 

Average annual hours actually worked per full-time equivalent worker will be greater than average annual hours actually worked per employed person. Average annual hours actually worked per employee are estimated when data for the 

self-employed are not available or are difficult to integrate 

into the calculations. Average annual hours actually worked 

per employee are generally lower than those per employed 

person, because the self-employed work longer hours than 

employees. This comparison of two data sets highlights how 

results differ, even for the same country, if a different source 

of data or unit of measure is used. Eight of the 13 countries 

have major differences in their data sources or methods.

BLS data set. In the face of continued interest in broad 

measures of productivity based on hours worked, a 2007 

BLS report began to publish international comparisons of 

GDP per hour worked, as well as GDP per employed person.21 The underlying data on total hours and total employment are collected from national sources, where available. 

The report covers 16 countries, but data on hours worked 

cover only 13 of the 16, all 13 of which are discussed in 

this article. Efforts are being made to extend coverage to 

Australia as well. Data for Germany have a break in 1991; 

data for earlier years are estimates based on the former 

West Germany’s hours and employment. Other breaks in 

series include a 1997 break for Canada due to changes in 

classification. The years covered for Japan and the Netherlands begin at 1996 and 1995, respectively.

Sources and concepts of data on hours are available in 

detail only for some countries. The BLS report publishes 

an aggregate, rather than average, measure of annual hours 

worked. The underlying source data used to calculate average annual hours actually worked in the BLS data set 

are most commonly total-hours-worked measures, available from national accounts, and total employment measures, usually estimated from national labor force surveys 

or available from national accounts. Data series for three 

countries—Japan, South Korea, and Belgium—are published 

as average hours worked. Japan and Belgium publish average 

annual hours worked in the national accounts and OECD 

productivity database, respectively.22 South Korea’s average 

annual hours worked are calculated from average weekly 

hours worked, based on the labor force survey. Four other 

countries’ hours-worked data are derived partially from labor 

force surveys. For the United Kingdom, total hours are based 

on labor force survey data whereas total employment comes 

from national accounts. For the United States, Canada, and 

the Netherlands, labor force surveys are the source of total 

employment data, adjusted, where necessary, to account for 

the Armed Forces. Total hours data for the United States and 

Canada are based on establishment and labor force surveys. 

The source of data for the remaining countries is total hours 

worked and employment based on national accounts.

Of the countries included in the BLS series, the average hours worked are on an employed-person basis for 

all but Japan, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom. 

Data on hours worked for Japan refer to employees and 

exclude the self-employed. Data for Norway are on a fulltime equivalent basis, and data for Spain and the United 

Kingdom are on a jobs basis.

OECD data set. Once a year, the OECD Employment Outlook

publishes data on average annual hours actually worked per 
Comparisons of Hours Worked

10 Monthly Labor Review • May 2009

 

United States 1950 None Establishment Labor force Hours paid, Labor force Data on Divide total Per 

 survey survey with survey Armed Forces hours by total employed

 adjustment employment person

 to hours

worked

Canada 1961 1997, Labor force Establishment National Labor force No more Divide total Per 

 NAICS survey survey accounts survey known hours by total employed

 sources employment person

Japan 1996 None National No more National No informa- No informa- No information Per

 accounts known accounts tion available tion available available employee

 sources

South Korea 1980 None Labor force No more Average No informa- No informa- Average weekly Per

 survey known hours worked, tion available tion available hours × 52 employed

 sources by week person

Belgium 1970 None Administra- No more National No informa- No informa- No informa- Per

 tive data known accounts tion available tion available tion available employed

 sources person

Denmark 1966 None National Administra- National National No more Divide total Per 

 accounts tive data accounts, accounts known hours by total employed 

 based on sources employment person

 normal hours

France 1970 None National No more National National No more Divide total Per

 accounts known accounts accounts known hours by total employed

 sources sources employment person

Germany 1960 1991 National No more National National No more Divide total Per

 accounts known accounts accounts known hours by total employed

 sources sources employment person

Netherlands 1995 None National No more Volume of Labor force Data on Divide total Per

 accounts known person-hours survey Armed Forces hours by total employed

 sources worked employment person

Norway 1970 None National No more Man-hours National No more Divide total Full-time

 accounts known accounts known man-hours equivalent

 sources sources worked by total

 employment

Spain 1979 None National No more No informa- National No more Divide total Per job

 accounts known tion available accounts known hours by total

 sources sources jobs

Sweden 1980 None National No more No informa- National No more Divide total Per

 accounts known tion available accounts known hours by total employed

 sources sources employment person

United 

Kingdom 1971 None Labor force No more No informa- National No more Divide total Per job

 survey known tion available accounts known hours by total

 sources sources jobs

1 The national accounts concept of hours worked is hours actually worked, unless otherwise noted.

Exhibit 1. BLS concepts, sources, and methods, 13 countries

Methodology 

used to create 

average annual

hours actually 

worked

Country Beginning

year

Breaks in

series

Primary

source of

data on

total hours

worked

Other 

sources

of data on

total hours

worked

Hours

concept

used in

source data1

Primary

source

of data on

total

employment

Other

sources 

of data on

total

empoyment

 Unit of

measure
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 11

 

United States 1950 None Establishment Labor force Hours paid, Establishment Labor force (Total hours/ Per 

 survey survey with adjust- survey survey total employed 

 ment to 

 hours worked 

 

Canada 1961 1997, Labor force Establishment National No informa- No informa- Direct measure Per job 

 NAICS survey survey accounts tion available tion available of average actual 

 hours worked,

 with 

 adjustments for

 weeks not covered

 and holidays

 

Japan 1970 None Establishment Labor force Hours Establishment Labor force OECD Per job 

 survey survey worked survey survey estimates 

 

 

South Korea 1980 None National No other National National No more OECD Per

 accounts known accounts accounts, known estimates employed

 based on sources based on sources person

 labor force labor force

survey survey

Belgium 1983 None Labor force Administrative Usual hours No informa- No informa- OECD Per

 survey data worked tion available tion available estimate, employed

 accounting for person

 underreporting

 of time not

 worked and 

 public holidays

Denmark 1970 None National Administrative National National No more OECD Per

 accounts data accounts accounts known estimates employed

 sources person

 

France 1970 None Administrative Establishment National No informa- No informa- French Per

 data and labor accounts, tion available tion available national employed

 force surveys based on accounts person

 hours offered

Germany 1991 1991 data Administrative Labor force National No informa- No informa- German Per

 series begin data survey accounts, tion available tion available national employed

 based on accounts person

 normal hours

Netherlands 1987 2002, 2003, Labor force Administrative Usual hours No informa- No informa- OECD Per

 OECD survey data worked tion available tion available estimate, employed

 estimates accounting for person

 underreporting 

 of time not

 worked and

 public holidays

Exhibit 2. OECD concepts, sources, and methods, 13 countries

Methodology 

used to create 

average annual

hours actually 

worked

Country Beginning

year

Breaks in

series

Primary

source of

data on

total hours

worked

Other 

sources

of data on

total hours

worked

Hours

concept

used in

source data1

Primary

source

of data on

total

employment

Other

sources 

of data on

total

empoyment

 Unit of

measure

employment) × person

multiplejobholder rate
Comparisons of Hours Worked

12 Monthly Labor Review • May 2009

employed person. The data are based on the OECD productivity database. Data on hours worked are converted, where 

necessary and possible, to employed persons from jobs. 

Some data for the Employment Outlook hours series are based 

on sources that differ from the productivity database. The 

OECD data set covers 30 countries and provides estimates of 

average annual hours actually worked per employed person 

(that is, all those employed, including the self-employed and 

unpaid family workers) and per employee (that is, excluding 

the self-employed and unpaid family workers).23 The years 

covered for Belgium and the Netherlands begin at 1983 and 

1987, respectively.

Compared with the BLS data set, the OECD data set 

provides slightly more metadata, because the organization 

collects and processes a questionnaire on national accounts 

from national statistical agencies of member countries. The 

hours concept used with the OECD data set is consistent 

with national accounts for 7 of the 13 countries in the data 

set. (See exhibit 2.) The countries for which data sources 

are derived not solely from national accounts include the 

United States, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and 

the United Kingdom. For the United States, both hours and 

employment are taken from the BLS major sector productivity measures. Data for Japan are measured primarily by an 

establishment survey and are OECD estimates. Estimates of 

average annual hours actually worked for Belgium and the 

Netherlands are developed from the European Union labor 

force survey, using usual hours of work and adjusting for 

hours not worked. Data for Spain are based on hours actually worked, as well as usual hours of work for those deemed 

not at work in the labor force survey. The data for the United 

Kingdom are based completely on the labor force survey, but 

are compatible with national accounts concepts.

More information on the OECD data set is available 

from Ypma and van Ark’s analysis of 2004 hours-worked 

data based on the OECD/European Union national accounts questionnaire.24 South Korea and the United Kingdom are the only two countries for which the dara source 

is solely the labor force survey. The United States, Canada, 

and Japan are categorized as using primarily survey (both 

 Norway 1962 None Establishment Labor force National No informa- No informa- Norwegian Full-time

 survey survey and accounts tion available tion available national equivalents

 administrative accounts

 data 

Spain 1977 1987, Labor force Establishment Actual and No informa- No informa- Spanish Full-time

 change in survey survey usual hours tion available tion available statistical equivalents 

 survey worked institute

Sweden 1950 1996, Labor force Establishment National No informa- No informa- Swedish Per

 change in survey survey accounts tion available tion available national employed

 data source accounts person

United 

Kingdom 1970 1984, 1992, Labor force No more Actual hours Labor force No more Average hours Per

 change in survey known worked survey known actually employed

 data source; sources sources worked × 52 person

 1994,

 include

 Northern

 Ireland;

 1995,

 change in

 

1 The national accounts concept of hours worked is hours actually worked, unless otherwise noted.

Exhibit 2. Continued—OECD concepts, sources, and methods, 13 countries

Methodology 

used to create 

average annual

hours actually 

worked

Country Beginning

year

Breaks in

series

Primary

source of

data on

total hours

worked

Other 

sources

of data on

total hours

worked

Hours

concept

used in

source data1

Primary

source

of data on

total

employment

Other

sources 

of data on

total

empoyment

 Unit of

measure

method
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 1

labor force and establishment) data and not administrative data. The third category is split between the countries 

that use survey data more than administrative data—such 

as Norway, Spain, and Sweden—and those which use primarily administrative data, supplemented by labor force and 

establishment survey data—such as Denmark, France, and 

Germany. For Belgium and the Netherlands, OECD prepares an estimate of average hours actually worked based 

on the labor force survey.

Comparison across BLS and OECD data sets. The next section 

compares the data on average annual hours actually worked 

per employed person between the BLS and OECD data 

sets.25 In preparation for that analysis, note that differences 

in data arise because of differences in sources, concepts, 

coverage, and units of measure. For Denmark, France for 

1990–2002, Germany for 1991 onward, Norway, and Sweden, data sources in each data set are the same. For Canada, 

Japan, South Korea, Denmark, and the Netherlands, average hours are higher in the BLS data set than in the OECD

data set. For France in earlier years, and for Belgium and 

Spain, the OECD estimates are higher than the BLS estimates. For the United States, Germany in earlier years, and 

the United Kingdom, average annual hours worked are not 

consistently higher or lower in either data set.

The differences between the data sets for the United 

States and Japan are difficult to pinpoint, given that coverage, sources, and methodology differ between data sets for 

both countries. Differences in units of measure affect the 

different levels among the data sets for Canada, Spain, and 

the United Kingdom. For Belgium, South Korea, and the 

Netherlands, the contrast between the BLS and OECD data 

sets for each country is due to the source of the data: administrative or survey based; the administrative-data adjustment 

for time not worked affects comparisons for two of the three 

countries, and the use of normal hours affects the third.

The country-by-country comparison to be presented 

highlights how data sources, measurement methods, and 

units of measure matter. The differences can be categorized as follows:

• Administrative sources reporting normal hours of 

work result in lower estimates of average annual 

hours actually worked than do data from surveys. 

• Among surveys, data that are primarily from establishment surveys using usual hours or paid hours worked 

produce lower estimates than do data that are primarily 

from labor force surveys; data from labor force surveys 

may overstate hours reported, due to proxy reporting.

• Adjustments to exclude hours not worked may overestimate time not worked and lower estimates of 

hours worked.

• Units of measurement can affect the levels of hours 

worked that are reported. 

1. More similar than different: Denmark, France, Germany, 

Norway, and Sweden. The Nordic countries covered, as 

well as Germany, and France for some years, use the same 

data source in both the BLS and OECD data sets and differ 

only slightly or not at all across years. For Denmark, average 

annual hours actually worked for both data sets are from the 

country’s national accounts and run parallel to each other. 

In 1980, average annual hours per employed person were 

about 1,650 for both data sets; by 2006, they had fallen to 

1,577 (OECD) and 1,608 (BLS). (See chart 1, top panel.) 

The 30-hour difference between data sources is likely due 

to differences in rounding or method of calculation.

For France, the source for both data sets is the French 

national accounts. From 1980 to 1989, differences are not 

large, averaging about 2 to 4 days a year for any given year. 

(See chart 1, middle panel.) The two data sets yield identical results for 1990–2002 and diverge only minimally for 

2003–06. The BLS methodology of linking data from different sources with similar concepts for the period before 

1990 creates slight differences between the two data sets.

For Germany, both data sets use that country’s national 

accounts from 1991 forward. The data sources are identical, and so are the series on average annual hours actually 

worked. Hours worked in 2006 were among the lowest that 

year of all the countries studied. The 1,436 average annual 

hours worked is the equivalent of working 36-hour weeks 

only 9 months of the year. (See chart 1, bottom panel.)

For both Norway and Sweden, national accounts data 

were used to prepare estimates of hours worked for both data 

sets. Nonetheless, the sources of the two countries’ data—administrative sources and the labor force survey—create the 

appearance that there are large differences in the Norwegian 

and Swedish labor markets when hours measures are compared. In Norway, hours worked were listed as 1,580 in 1980 

and had fallen to 1,400 by 2006. (See chart 2, top panel.) In 

Sweden, hours worked were near 1,500 in 1980 and 1981; 

peaked in 1999; returned to 1,580, an increase equivalent to 

2 weeks of work, by 2002; and mostly held steady since then, 

coming in at 1,583 in 2006. (See chart 2, bottom panel.) 

This difference between Sweden and Norway will be examined more carefully in the next section. 

2. United States and Japan: countervailing differences. The 

data sets differ for the United States and Japan. The differences, however, are so varied that it is difficult to pin-
Comparisons of Hours Worked

14 Monthly Labor Review • Ma  20

 Chart 1. Average annual hours actually worked, all employed persons, Denmark, France, and Germany, 

1980–2006

OECD

BLS

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Hours 

worked

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

Denmark

Germany

1,900

1,8

1,80

1,7

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

OECD

BLS

France

1,900

1,8

1,80

1,7

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

OECD

BLS

1,80

1,7

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

1,80

1,7

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 1

 Chart 2. Average annual hours actually worked, all employed persons, Norway and Sweden, 1980–2006

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1,3

1,30

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Norway

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1,3

1,30

BLS, OECD1

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

BLS, OECD1

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

Sweden

1 For Norway, BLS and OECD data are identical for every year except 1989 and 1999, for which they differ by 1 hour. For Sweden, BLS and OEC

data are identical.

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked
Comparisons of Hours Worked

16 Monthly Labor Review • Ma  20

point how they might produce differences in time trends. 

U.S. estimates of hours are produced by the BLS Division 

of Major Sector Productivity and are based on hourspaid data from an establishment survey on production 

workers, adjusted to an hours-worked measure by means 

of the labor cost index and further adjusted to account 

for industries and categories of workers not otherwise included, as well as self-employed and unpaid family workers, based on the U.S. Current Population Survey.26 The 

estimates cover the total economy. The OECD uses aggregate employment data based on the same methodology 

to create a data series of average annual hours actually 

worked and then adjusts from a jobs to an employedperson basis. The BLS, by contrast, uses employment data 

from the national labor force survey, adjusted to include 

military employment. The differences between the levels 

of hours published in the OECD and BLS data sets reflect 

the historically different trends in U.S. employment as 

measured by establishment and labor force surveys. The 

overall difference between the two data sets lies in the 

source of employment data and the underlying differences between the two surveys.27

In the case of Japan, the OECD series on average hours 

actually worked is estimated from Japan’s establishment 

survey for employees and includes labor force survey data 

on the self-employed. The BLS data set is based on the 

national accounts data for employees from 1997 onward. 

Using the categories of differences outlined earlier, labor 

force survey data are expected to produce higher rates 

than national accounts data based on administrative or 

establishment survey data. But for Japan, the OECD hours 

series based on the labor force survey is lower, on average, than the BLS hours series based on national accounts. 

Further complicating matters is the fact that hours for all 

the employed would be expected to be lower than hours 

for employees, given the nature of self-employment. 

However, that expectation is not borne out in the case of 

the two data sets on Japan: the employee data from the 

national accounts trend higher than the OECD data on all 

employed persons from the labor force. Only in the case 

of units of measure does the direction of the difference 

hold. Data on hours worked are on a per-job basis for the 

OECD and a per-person basis for BLS. This is the only one 

of three differences that explains why hours-worked data 

are higher for the BLS data set. Chart 3 shows the average 

annual hours actually worked by all employed persons, for 

the United States and Japan.

3. Canada, Spain, and the United Kingdom: units of measure matter. In these three countries, the unit of measure, 

among other things, drives the differences between the 

data sets. For Canada, the BLS data series is based on a 

measure of hours per employed person, whereas the OECD

data series is based on a measure of hours per job. All 

other things being equal, average hours actually worked 

per employed person are higher than average hours actually worked per job. Also for Canada, the two data sets 

use the same source for hours-worked data, but different 

sources for employment data. The source of OECD data is 

the Canadian national accounts, which combine establishment and labor force survey data; by contrast, the source 

of BLS data is an employment series for employed persons 

from the labor force survey. The BLS figure is higher for 

all years, partly because of the difference in sources and 

partly because the unit of measurement is employed persons rather than jobs.

For Spain, the BLS hours series draws from national 

accounts data based partially on the country’s labor force 

survey and reported on a per-job basis. The OECD data 

set uses a data series estimated by the national statistical 

institute, is based on actual and usual hours from the labor force survey, and adopts a full-time-equivalent unit of 

measure. These differences create two nearly parallel data 

series, with the BLS series, on the per-job basis, at a lower 

level than the OECD series. Together, the source and the 

unit of measure for Spain explain why the BLS data set 

shows lower levels than the OECD data set.

For the United Kingdom, the BLS and OECD data sets 

each use that country’s labor force survey data on hours actually worked. The source of data on average hours worked 

per person is the same, but the source of data on employment differs. The BLS data source for employment is a national accounts data series of aggregate jobs that combines 

data from both establishment and labor force surveys. The 

employment source for the OECD data series is solely the 

labor force survey, measured on an employed-person basis. 

Without more detailed information on the national accounts methodology, it is difficult to determine the extent 

to which the establishment survey data may affect the 

hours-worked measure. The unit of measure does explain 

the difference in the two trends: the trend is lower for the 

BLS series, which is based on jobs, than it is for the OECD

series, which is based on employed persons. Chart 4 shows 

the average annual hours actually worked by all employed 

persons, for Canada, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

4. Belgium, South Korea, and the Netherlands: normal hours 

and time not worked. The inclusion of normal hours based 

on administrative data to estimate time worked and to adjust for time not worked also drives differences between 
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 1

 Chart 3. Average annual hours actually worked, all employed persons, United States and Japan, 1980–2006

1,900

1,8

1,8

1,8

1,82

1,80

1,7

1,7

1,740 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 19

OECD

BLS

1,900

1,8

1,8

1,8

1,82

1,80

1,7

1,7

1,7

United States

2,200

2,100

2,000

1,900

1,80

1,70

1,60

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

OECD

BLS

2,200

2,100

2,000

1,900

1,80

1,70

1,60

Japan

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked
Comparisons of Hours Worked

18 Monthly Labor Review • Ma  20

1,8

1,80

1,7

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

1,8

1,80

1,7

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

 Chart 4. Average annual hours actually worked, all employed persons, Canada, Spain, and United Kingdom, 

1980–2006

OECD

Canada BLS

1,8

1,82

1,80

1,7

1,7

1,7

1,72

1,70

1,6

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

1,8

1,82

1,80

1,7

1,7

1,7

1,72

1,70

1,6

Spain

2,200

2,000

1,80

1,60

1,40

1,200

1,000

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

OECD

BLS

2,200

2,000

1,80

1,60

1,40

1,200

1,000

OECD

BLS

United Kingdom

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 19

data sets. The BLS and OECD data sets show different 

time trends for Belgium, South Korea, and the Netherlands. Upon analysis, the BLS data series based on normal 

hours present a lower trend in hours worked, as in the 

case of Belgium. For South Korea and the Netherlands, 

the OECD adjustments to time not worked, using normal 

or administrative data, create an hours-worked series that 

averages 11⁄2 to 3 weeks less than the BLS series for both 

countries (except South Korea in earlier years).

For Belgium, BLS uses the average-hours-worked series 

from the OECD productivity database, which differs from 

the OECD data set based on the Employment Outlook. 

These data for Belgium are based on administrative data, 

according to Ypma and van Ark.28 The OECD data set, by 

contrast, uses the labor force survey to create an estimate 

of hours worked. The tendency of administrative data to 

produce lower estimates, by undercounting overtime and 

overestimating leave time taken, explains the lower numbers in the BLS data set for Belgium’s hours relative to the 

numbers in the OECD data.

In the case of South Korea, the OECD and BLS data series both use the labor force survey as their primary source 

of data. On the one hand, the OECD estimates for South 

Korea are based on that nation’s labor force survey and include an adjustment downward to aggregate hours worked 

in the year, in order to account for time not worked, before 

dividing by employment. On the other hand, the BLS estimates for South Korea are based on published data on 

average weekly hours worked for persons at work. The average is multiplied by 52 to create a yearly average, and no 

adjustments are made for time not worked. The OECD’s 

additional adjustment for time not worked contributes to 

a lower estimate of average annual hours actually worked 

compared with the BLS estimate, even though the OECD 

unit of measure takes account of all those who are employed, as opposed to the BLS employee measure.

For the Netherlands, aggregate hours data for the BLS

data set are based on the Dutch national accounts hoursworked data series and employment is from the labor 

force survey, adjusted to include the Armed Forces. The 

OECD data set’s estimate of average annual hours actually worked is based on the labor force survey’s figure for 

usual hours of work and includes adjustments to time not 

worked. The different sources provide different data series. 

For 2006, OECD reports 1,391 average annual hours actually worked—about 21⁄2 person-weeks less than the BLS 

series figure. One would expect that labor force survey 

data would produce a higher average-hours-worked series. However, if OECD’s adjustments to time not worked 

overestimate the hours not worked, then the number of 

hours worked will be underestimated. This would explain 

the fact that data from the BLS hours-worked series yield 

higher numbers than do data from the OECD series based 

on the labor force survey. Chart 5 shows the average annual hours actually worked by all employed persons, for 

Belgium, South Korea, and the Netherlands.

Both the BLS and the OECD suggest that the data 

user compare the trends over time between countries. 

A rank von Neumann test comparing the differences in 

level data between the BLS and OECD data sets for each 

country determined that the trends are similar for 10 

of the 13 countries examined in this article. That is, the 

only 3 countries that show a significant probability of 

having experienced a random degree of change between 

data sets over time were the United States, France, and 

the Netherlands. Thus, for these 3 countries, there is a 

variability in the rankings which implies that the two 

sets of data are not drawn from the same population, 

which in this case would be represented by the data 

source. The test results for the other countries show that 

the rankings of the differences between the levels are not 

different from each other, indicating that the associated 

data sets exhibit “trendlike” features. This statistical test 

provides evidence that, for the majority of the countries 

examined, the comparison made of trends over time is 

consistent and useful, even when different sources or 

methods are used.

Comparison of hours worked and working time

The concept of hours worked, as addressed in this article, 

is a purely quantitative measure of the number of hours an 

individual spends at work. Working time, by contrast, is a 

broader concept that encompasses quality-of-worklife issues, 

including the scheduling of hours of work, such as overtime, 

split-shifts, and “just-in-time” flexible work schedules; night 

work and weekend work; and part-time work.

A cross-country comparison of hours worked for the 

13 countries examined in this article, using the OECD

data set, reflects a number of institutional changes in both 

working time and hours worked. Historically, the United 

States pioneered reductions in working time well in advance of other industrial nations, although Western Europe caught up by the 1980s.29 Since then, a number of 

changes in the structure of the labor market have contributed further to a reduction in working time. First, normal 

hours of work have declined in many developed countries 

because of changes in laws and collective-bargaining 

agreements. Second, women have increasingly joined the 

labor force and work, on average, fewer hours than men. 
Comparisons of Hours Worked

20 Monthly Labor Review • May 2009

 Chart 5. Average annual hours actually worked, all employed persons, Belgium, South Korea, and the 

Netherlands, 1980–2006

1,8

1,80

1,7

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1,3

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

OECD

BLS

Belgium

1,8

1,80

1,7

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1,3

3,00

2,900

2,80

2,70

2,60

2,50

2,40

2,30

2,200

South Korea

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

OECD

BLS

3,00

2,900

2,80

2,70

2,60

2,50

2,40

2,30

2,200

Netherlands

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1,3

1,30

1,25

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

BLS

OECD

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1,3

1,30

1,25

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 21

Finally, part-time hours worked in the growing service 

sector mitigate the overtime work pattern in the relatively 

smaller manufacturing sector. Each of these labor market 

conditions merits discussion. 

A 2004 OECD report on working time analyzes the 

broader measure of labor utilization—average annual 

hours actually worked per capita—showing that these 

hours have barely declined over the past three decades, 

even as average annual hours actually worked per employed 

person fell significantly.30 The large decline in average annual hours worked per worker was offset by increases in 

both the employment rate (or employment-population 

ratio) and the share of the population that is of working 

age. The employment rate has risen as more women join 

the workforce and as older workers stay in their jobs rather than retire. Both women and older workers are more 

likely to work fewer hours in a full-time job or become 

part of the growing ranks of part-time workers.

A 10-year snapshot with available data of the employment-population ratio, part-time employment rate, and 

women’s labor force participation rate reflects, to a lesser 

degree, the 30-year trend just described. (See table 1.) In 9 

of the 13 countries examined, there were small increases in 

the employment-population ratio. ( Japan and South Korea 

saw a small decline and Spain experienced a large increase.) 

The part-time employment rate grew from a low point in 

South Korea and Spain; it fell in the United States and 

Sweden, and it remained steady in Canada, Japan, France, 

Norway, and the United Kingdom. The part-time employment rate rose in the remaining countries. Dutch policy 

and legislation provide strong incentives for part-time employment, which are reflected in the fact that more than 

a third of workers are employed part time in the Netherlands. The women’s labor force participation rate inched 

up in all of the countries studied, except for Japan, where it 

fell, and the Netherlands and Spain, where it rose dramatically. Nearly a tenth of women in the latter two countries 

joined the labor force over the 10 years examined.

In both the OECD and BLS data series, 1980–2006 

trends in average annual hours actually worked per employed person broadly reflect the institutional norms and 

laws relating to working time in each of the 13 countries 

discussed. This section next addresses some of the significant institutional and legislative changes that have occurred in the past 26 years in these countries.31

Countries with high working time. Of the countries examined, the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea—

and the United Kingdom and Italy until recently—share 

some or all of the following characteristics in their labor 

market institutions and laws:

• a normal workweek of 40 hours or more

• no limit on maximum hours of work allowed per 

week

• vacation time subject to tenure in job 

• wage or leave penalties for absence from work

• limited or no legal entitlement to vacation time. 

The United States and Japan impose no legal limit on the 

maximum number of hours worked per week. Regarding 

paid time off, business practice in the United States varies 

Table 1.

 

 

 1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006

United States................................................................................ 63.2 63.1 14

Canada............................................................................................ 59.1 63.6 19

Japan............................................................................................... 60.9 57.5 21

South Korea .................................................................................. 59.4 58.9  4

Belgium.......................................................................................... 45.1 48.8 14.9

Denmark ........................................................................................ 60.3 62.8 16.9

France ............................................................................................. 49.1 51.2 14.2 1

Germany ........................................................................................ 52.0 52.2 15.2 21.9

Netherlands.................................................................................. 56.2 62.5 

Norway........................................................................................... 60.2 62.6 21.2 21.1

Spain ............................................................................................... 38.9 52.3 7.6 

Sweden........................................................................................... 57.6 60.4 

United Kingdom ......................................................................... 57.3 60.1 

Table 1.

Employment-

 population ratio

Part-time

 employment rate

Women’s labor

 force participation rate

Three important international labor market indicators, 1996 and 2006

Country
Comparisons of Hours Worked

22 Monthly Labor Review • May 2009

widely, with some businesses granting leave only after a 

year’s tenure, others increasing the number of leave days 

with job tenure, and about a fourth providing no paid 

leave at all. Japanese and South Korean labor laws differ 

from business practice. Businesses are supposed to pay for 

overtime and to promote leave for employees. In practice, 

however, workers usually take vacation hours when sick, 

because sick leave is often unpaid. In some cases, employers penalize workers’ absences by deducting or not providing bonus pay or vacation time.32 Canada, the United 

Kingdom, South Korea, and Japan require statutory paid 

vacation time for full-time employees, while there is no 

requirement in U.S. law to provide vacation time, either 

paid or unpaid. Of the six countries with high working 

time, only the United Kingdom and Italy require employers to pay part-time or temporary employees for their annual leave. The European countries are set apart by the 

fact that they recently adopted the European Union’s 

mandates on working-time restrictions.33

Between 1988 and 1997, Japanese laws reduced normal 

hours of work from 48 to 40 hours per week; between 1997 

and 2004, South Korea followed suit. (See box, this page.) 

There have been few changes in labor laws in the remaining four countries during the past 25 years. In the 1990s, 

the United Kingdom and Italy complied with the European Union regulations to limit working hours in 2002 and 

2003, respectively.

Countries with low working time. Conditions in Belgium, 

Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and 

Sweden differ from those of the high-working-time countries just described. The aforementioned recent changes 

to labor laws in the United Kingdom and Italy now place 

these two countries in the low-working-time category. 

These countries share some or all of the following characteristics in their labor market institutions and laws:

• a legal or collectively bargained workweek of less 

than 40 hours

• a limit on the maximum number of hours worked 

during the week and a limit on the maximum number of overtime hours worked during the year

• statutory paid vacation time of a minimum of 4 

weeks per year for full-time workers and prorated 

for part-time employees

• near-universal entitlement to statutory vacation 

time

• broad coverage of collective-bargaining agreements 

that provide even more generous leave entitlements 

than those written into law. 

Revised laws regarding normal hours of work have been 

implemented throughout Europe as a result of the European Union Directive on Working Time, which was first 

introduced in 1993 and most recently revised in 2003.34 

These laws (1) limit the hours that employees can work 

overtime throughout the year and (2) establish vacation 

rights of 4 weeks per year for full-time employees, with 

prorated vacations for part-time employees.

Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden have 

a high share of workers covered by collective-bargaining 

agreements; these countries saw reductions in the workweek as a result of changes in those agreements in the late 

1980s. The Netherlands passed national legislation in 2000 

that allowed employees to choose the number of hours 

they want to work. The legislation led to a further growth 

in part-time employment, which had begun to grow in the 

1980s.35 The trend toward reductions in working time was 

complemented by the implementation of the European 

Union Working Time Directive in member countries. The 

last two of the major European countries to ratify changes 

in labor laws to comply with the directive were the United 

Kingdom in 2002 and Italy in 2003. 

The case of France is unique, because the reduction in 

the normal workweek was initiated by laws, not collective-bargaining agreements. A series of laws was passed 

beginning in the 1990s to reduce the number of hours in 

the normal workweek, with the primary purpose of decreasing high unemployment. The changes began with the 

Robien law in 1996, followed by the Aubry laws in 1998 

and 2002, effectively reducing the normal workweek from 

39 hours to 35 hours.

The trend toward reductions in hours shows signs of 

South Koreans work longer hours per week than 

workers in many other OECD countries, despite national legislation that phased in the 40-hour workweek by 2004. The 2007 South Korean labor force 

survey reports that nearly 60 percent of all employed 

persons who were at work when the survey was taken 

actually worked 45 hours or more a week, whereas less 

than 30 percent worked a 36- to 44-hour workweek. 

Less than 15 percent of part-time employed persons 

who were at work when the survey was taken worked 

35 or fewer hours a week. 

South Korea’s long hours worked
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 2

reversing in some countries. French legislation in 2003—

specifically, the Fillon law—excluded small businesses 

from the normal maximum workweek limit of 35 hours, 

and further revisions in 2007 were intended to provide 

greater flexibility in scheduling hours for businesses. In 

Germany, since 2003 a number of collective-bargaining 

agreements, among them the trend-setting Volkswagen 

and IGMetall agreements, have seen an increase in the 

length of the regular workweek (which remains under 40 

hours) in exchange for job security. The trend of raising the 

ceiling on normal hours continues today in contract bargaining, especially in Germany. However, hours-worked 

statistics do not necessarily reflect this or any other trend. 

(See box, this page.)

Numerous studies of industrial relations in both the 

countries with high working time and those with low working time provide detailed information on the institutions, 

labor markets, and demographics that reinforce the quarter-century trends seen in the OECD and BLS data series on 

average annual hours actually worked per employed person. 

Among the findings are high, but declining, hours worked 

in Asian countries; little change in hours worked in Anglophone countries, where a large share of workers continues 

to work more than normal hours; and falling hours worked 

in European countries, because of a reduction in normal 

and contractual hours and rising part-time employment.36

Comparison of Japanese and U.S. hours worked 

Pinpointing whether one country’s average hours actually 

worked are more or less than another’s for a given year or 

period is not a precise science. The next two sections look 

at the data series for two countries whose labor market 

conditions do not seem to be reflected in their data: Japan 

and Sweden. Japan’s hours-worked series in both the BLS

and OECD data sets show that the average hours actually 

worked by Japanese workers are on a par with those worked 

by U.S. workers, defying the many references to that country’s “long-hours culture” that have become commonplace. 

On the other end of the spectrum, Sweden’s hours worked 

trended upward during the 25-year period studied, quite 

unlike the trend in the other 12 countries and, in particular, 

quite unlike its neighbor Norway, which has similar labor 

practices. An analysis of the data sources used to construct 

the various time series, together with a look at alternative sources, provides a further window of understanding 

into the challenges of international comparisons of data 

on hours worked. The estimates for Japan and Sweden are 

compared with those for the United States and Norway, 

respectively, and with alternative data sources.

The OECD data series for Japan shows that, for 2006, 

annual average hours actually worked were 1,784, a figure 

that is 35 hours less than the U.S. estimate of 1,804. (See 

chart 6; data before 1996 are not available for the BLS data 

set.) Over a quarter century, Japan’s annual average hours 

actually worked declined by 42 eight-hour workdays and 

the U.S. average fell by less than 2 eight-hour workdays. Is 

it possible that U.S. workers now work longer hours than 

their Japanese counterparts? Further, how does one explain the common practice of employees working unpaid 

overtime in Japan despite recent regulations restricting 

overtime hours?37 Finally, what about the culture of long 

work hours as exemplified by official recognition of the occupational hazard of death from overwork, a phenomenon 

the Japanese call karoshi?38

Some researchers think that the data for Japan undercount unpaid overtime and long hours of work. Evidence on 

the incidence of overtime work in Japan, shown repeatedly 

in many special surveys on labor conditions, together with a 

historical comparison help interpret Japan’s data series. The 

incidence and degree of usual overtime in Japan from 1997 

through 2007 are given in table 2, which compares ranges 

of hours worked by persons who worked at least two-thirds 

of the year; these workers represent approximately 80 percent of employed persons.39 In all 3 years shown, 87 percent 

or more of these year-round employed persons worked 

at least a 35-hour week. However, from 1997, the year in 

Germany’s “minijobs”

Germany’s “minijobs” escape measurement. A 

growing number of people work in such jobs, also 

called “one-euro jobs”—positions that have a limit on 

the hours that can be worked and that offer wages 

on which earnings are not subject to income taxes 

and employer taxes are reduced. The program was 

intended to create jobs for the unemployed, but employed workers have taken on minijobs as second jobs 

because of the tax advantage. In 2004, minijobs accounted for about 12 percent of employment, and 37 

percent of minijobs went to people who had another 

job. Minijobs are excluded from the administrative 

framework of tax collection, so data on the hours 

worked at them and the number of jobs they generate 

are excluded from hours-worked statistics (personal 

communication, Dr. Ulrich Walwei, Bundesagentur 

für Arbeit/Institute for Employment Research, Germany, April 2006).
Comparisons of Hours Worked

24 Monthly Labor Review • Ma  20

which legislation was passed to reduce the normal workweek from 44 to 40 hours, the share of persons who usually 

worked 43 or more hours per week shifted slightly upward, 

from 57 percent in 1997 to 61 percent in 2002. The percentage fell to 59 percent in 2007. Over the year, a number 

of employees do not take vacation time, even though they 

are entitled to it. According to one 2005 study, workers 

take less than half their vacation for the year, accumulating 

an average of 18 untaken vacation days.40

Further evidence of the undercount of hours in the 

OECD data set is found in Takeshi Mizunoya’s research. 

Mizunoya uses both labor force and establishment surveys 

to determine the degree to which different survey sources 

for Japanese data matter. His critique of the OECD annualhours-worked data series for underreporting hours worked 

in Japan stems from the type of survey that the OECD uses. 

Rather than using the establishment survey, as the OECD

does, Mizunoya uses the labor force survey for 3 years during the 1990s to account for unpaid overtime, developing 

an estimate of employees’ average annual hours actually 

worked.41 Chart 7 compares Mizunoya’s estimates with the 

OECD annual-hours-worked data series. The Mizunoya 

estimates are greater than the OECD data for each of the 

years studied—1990, 1995, and 1999—increasing from a 

240-hour to a 270-hour difference over the decade, or the 

equivalent of at least 6 weeks more a year. Because, on average, the self-employed work more hours than employees, 

the Mizunoya estimate, based on employees, does not fully 

compensate for the greater number of hours worked by the 

self-employed.

This example from Japan leaves the lesson that understanding labor markets is key to deciphering the differences in data sources and explaining how those differences affect comparisons.

Swedish and Norwegian hours worked 

The BLS and OECD data sets for Sweden and Norway are 

identical, each using the data prepared by that country’s 

national accounts. However, the data series for Sweden 

shows that average annual hours actually worked in 2006 

were the highest among countries with low working time 

and were about 175 hours more than those of Sweden’s 

Nordic neighbor Norway. Twenty-five years ago, Sweden’s 

hours were lower than Norway’s, but average annual hours 

actually worked in 2006 were reported to be 1,583 for 

 Chart 6. Average annual hours actually worked, all employed persons, the United States and Japan, 

1980–2006

2,200

2,100

2,000

1,900

1,80

1,70

1,60

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

2,200

2,100

2,000

1,900

1,80

1,70

1,60

Japan

United States

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 2

Sweden and 1,407 for Norway. (See chart 8.) Until the 

1990s, hours fell in both countries, but Sweden’s hours 

worked rose throughout the decade and remain the highest among countries with low hours worked. By contrast, 

Norway’s hours worked show a continuously declining 

trend. Is it possible that Swedes work 5 weeks more per 

year, on average, than Norwegians? This seems unlikely, 

for a number of reasons. First, both countries have labor 

laws that provide generous statutory paid leave of 5 weeks 

a year—1 more week than that mandated by the European 

Union Working Time Directive—and full- and part-time 

workers are eligible for this leave. Second, Sweden has 

11 national holidays compared with Norway’s 9. Finally, 

many employees in both countries are covered by collective-bargaining agreements and work less than a 40-hour 

workweek.

The similarities in labor conditions belie the fact that 

the two countries’ economies experienced different levels 

of prosperity in the 1990s. Norway’s oil wealth cushioned it 

from the austerity that the Swedish economy had to turn to 

in the 1990s. Sweden experienced a strong economic downturn and increasing unemployment, and saw its generous 

social policies curbed throughout the decade.42 The increase 

in the country’s hours worked in the 1990s is counterintuitive: a weak economy generally contributes to a decline in 

hours worked, both individually and across the economy. 

The decline in hours worked as of 2000 can be explained 

by a number of changes, including continued reductions in 

normal hours of work through collective-bargaining agreements in the private sector43 and adverse effects of the expansion of an already generous sick leave policy, leading to 

a daily rate of absence from work of 20 percent.44 In light of 

these developments, Sweden’s average annual hours actually worked appear suspiciously high.

The Swedish national accounts’ primary source of data on 

employment and hours worked is the country’s labor force 

survey. The Norwegian national accounts data, by contrast, 

are based on normal hours of work reported by administrative data sources. Administrative data used by Norway lead 

to the lowest estimates of hours actually worked, whereas 

labor force surveys, such as those used by Sweden’s national 

accounts, produce the highest estimates. These differences 

in underlying data sources make it difficult to compare the 

two countries’ data series. It is probable that hours actually 

worked in each country lie somewhere in between the two 

series’ values, but it is highly unlikely that Swedish people 

work 4 to 5 more weeks a year than Norwegians do.

Using data from similar sources and creating a simple 

methodology of comparison shrinks the differences between the two countries’ hours-worked figures considerably. 

and increases their levels as well. Harmonized labor force 

survey data on hours actually worked per week for Norway 

and Sweden are available for 2006. Because the two countries’ labor force surveys are continuous, one can estimate 

average annual hours actually worked by multiplying the 

average of hours actually worked per week by 52. The labor 

force survey reports higher hours overall for both countries 

and diminishes the difference between them. As the following tabulation shows, the difference between Norway’s 

and Sweden’s average annual hours actually worked declines 

from 41⁄2 weeks to 11⁄2 weeks when comparable data sources 

and methodologies are used: 

 

 actually worked per employed person, 2006

Country National accounts European Union 

labor force survey

Norway ........................ 1,407 1,817

Sweden ......... ............... 1,583 1,872

These examples highlight how differences in concepts and 

Table 1.

 

 All year-round employed persons..................................................... 53,873,000  50,576,

Less than 15 ...................................................................................................... .9 1.0 1.

15–21................................................................................................................ 1.9 2.4 

22–34................................................................................................................  6.0  

 35–42................................................................................................................  34.1 29

 43–45................................................................................................................ 15.0 1

 46–48................................................................................................................ 15

 49–59................................................................................................................ 15.9 19

 60 or more...................................................................................................... 10.6 14

Table 2.

1997 2002 2007

NOTE: Year-round employed persons are those who work more than 200 

days per year.

Percent distribution of weekly hours worked by year-round employed persons, Japan, 1997, 2002,

and 2007

SOURCE: Employment Status Survey, Statistics Bureau, Management and 

Coordination Agency, Government of Japan. 

Weekly hours worked

Average annual hours
Comparisons of Hours Worked

26 Monthly Labor Review • Ma  20

sources can affect estimates of average annual hours actually worked. Despite the problems that are inherent in 

making comparisons of levels of annual hours worked per 

person, broad trends are often reliable, reflecting real labor 

conditions in a country.

Data sources matter

The preceding comparisons between Japan and the United States, on the one hand, and Sweden and Norway, on 

the other, are complemented by two studies: one by the 

French researchers Mireille Bruyère and Odile Chagny, 

and the other by the OECD. Both analyses used usualhours-worked data from labor force surveys to create 

estimates of average annual hours actually worked and 

made adjustments with other data sources to account for 

hours not worked. Both analyses found that, in general, 

labor force surveys produce usual-hours-worked estimates that are greater than those based on normal hours 

worked, but lower than estimates based on hours actual 

worked.

Bruyère and Chagny’s labor force survey estimates from 

the 1990s showed higher average hours worked for the 

same year, compared with the OECD estimates described 

in earlier sections, which are based on hours paid and normal hours for the United States, Japan, France, Germany, 

and the Netherlands.45 However, the authors’ estimate of 

average hours worked for the United Kingdom was lower 

than that prepared for the OECD database, which is based 

on hours actually worked from the labor force survey. 

An OECD special study that used data for 2002 and a 

decomposition method produced results similar to those 

of Bruyère and Chagny.46 Using usual hours worked and 

adjusting for hours not worked, the OECD special study 

produced estimates for France and Germany that were 

higher, compared with values from the normal-hours-ofwork source of the regular OECD data set. The Dutch data 

for both OECD publications should be the same as well, 

but differed inexplicably. The U.K. estimate based on the 

decomposition method and using normal hours as well as 

survey sources was lower than the estimate based on the 

actual-hours-worked estimate.

 Chart 7. Average annual hours actually worked per employed person or per employee,1 Japan, 1990, 1995, 

and 1999, OECD and Mizunoya data series

2,50

2,000

1,50

1,000

50

0

NOTE: OECD data are per employed person; Mizunoya data are per employee.

OECD Mizunoya

1990 1995 19

2,50

2,000

1,50

1,000

50

0

1990 1995 19

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 2

 Chart 8. Average annual hours actually worked, all employed persons, Sweden and Norway, 1980–2006

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1,3

1,30

1,25

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

1,70

1,6

1,60

1,5

1,50

1,4

1,40

1,3

1,30

1,25

Norway

Sweden

Hours 

worked

Hours 

worked

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE confirms 

that biases are inherent in data sources used to measure 

hours worked. Data series of average annual hours actually worked based on normal and contractual hours concepts from administrative sources yield low measures of 

hours worked, whereas series based on establishment and 

labor force surveys provide relatively higher measures. The 

highest levels of hours worked are estimated directly from 

labor force surveys.

The OECD and BLS data series on average annual hours 

actually worked per employed person reflect broad trends 

in labor markets. The likelihood that hours worked in Japan are higher than reported, but still falling, is a reasonable conclusion, based on the differences in data sources 

and changes in legislation in that country. The OECD data 

series showing that U.S. workers work more hours per year, 

on average, than their European counterparts appears to 

be slightly inflated because of differences in sources and 

methods, but the difference is nonetheless real. Flat trends 

in hours worked in Anglophone countries reflect those 

countries’ work regulations.

The cases of Japan and Sweden highlight how measures of hours worked cannot be taken at face value. It is 

unlikely that Japanese workers work fewer hours per year 

than their U.S. counterparts when a majority of them 

have a longer workweek and take fewer days of vacation. 

That Swedish workers work considerably more hours than 

Norway’s workers also seems doubtful.

The cross-country comparisons of hours worked for both 

employees and those who are employed, using the same 

method for different countries and different methods for 

the same country, also provide a valuable lesson. These comparisons show that concepts, sources, and methods matter 

in building comparable hours-worked data series across 

countries. Because both survey-based data on hours actually 

worked and direct estimation produce high hours-worked 

estimates, and normal and contractual hours worked from 

administrative data produce low hours-worked estimates, it 

is important that any data series be transparent in describing sources and methods used in preparing estimates.

The international comparison of hours-worked data, 

like most international comparisons, is subject to the constraint that national statistics are developed primarily to 

serve a national purpose. Thus, the best source of hours 
Comparisons of Hours Worked

28 Monthly Labor Review • Ma  20

available for one country may not be for another. The 

English-speaking and Asian OECD countries selected for 

study here recently have made improvements in surveybased data to measure overtime and long work hours more 

accurately. For example, in 1997, the redesigned Canadian 

labor force survey expanded and revised its questions on 

hours worked.47 Also, some European countries recently 

revised their labor force surveys to get improved coverage of hours not worked. For example, Sweden introduced 

questions to expand information on absences from work 

in its 2005 labor force survey,48 and in March 2002 France 

revised its labor force questionnaire for the European 

Union, adding and clarifying questions on average and 

contractual hours, reasons for days off, and the reference 

period for usual hours worked.49

Improvements in data collection lead to revisions in 

estimation methods. Statistics Norway is studying the use 

of the now-continuous labor force survey for actual hours, 

rather than normal hours, of work—partly because annual average hours based on labor force survey data are 

nearly 12 percent higher than hours-worked figures based 

on administrative data using the normal-hours-of-work 

concept.50 Improvements in the collection and measurement of data on hours in a number of the OECD countries 

should lead to improved harmonization of data among 

these countries in the future. In the meantime, data on 

average annual hours actually worked remain useful for 

broad comparisons, but consumers of these data should 

take heed: small differences between countries may tell a 

misleading story.

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The author thanks many people for their support, comments, and suggestions. Special thanks go to BLS economists 

Jennifer Raynor, Richard Esposito, and Marie-Claire Sodergren; to 

Judy Yang, BLS student trainee in economics; to Constance Sorrentino, for her always helpful guiding eye; and to Pascal Marianna of the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 

whose ability to provide more detail on the methodology of the OECD

database proved invaluable in producing this article. The article also 

benefited from the review of Omar Hardardson of Eurostat and Statistics Iceland; Sophie Lawrence of the International Labor Organization; Paul Swaim of the OECD; and Angus Maddison, Emeritus 

Professor, Faculty of Economics, University of Groningen. The ideas 

set forth in this article are solely the responsibility of the author and do 

not necessarily reflect the views of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

1 Available on the Internet at www.oecd.org/statistics (visited May 22, 

2009). 

2 See “Resolution concerning statistics of hours of work, adopted by the 

Tenth International Conference of Labor Statisticians (October 1962),” on the 

Internet at www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/download/res/hours.pdf

(visited May 22, 2009). 

3 See www.redorbit.com/news/business/675442/vw_workers_agree_

to_33hour_workweek/index.html (visited May 15, 2009); www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/29/business/vw.php (visited May 22, 2009); www.justlanded.

com/english/Netherlands/Tools/Just-Landed-Guide/Jobs/Working-theNetherlands (visited May 22, 2009); and docs.minszw.nl/pdf/135/2007/135_

2007_1_18401.pdf (visited May 22, 2009). 

4 The U.S. Current Population Survey calls this concept hours at work.

5 Ralf Hussmanns, Farhad Mehran, and Vijay Verma, Surveys of economically active population, employment, unemployment and underemployment: An ILO 

manual on concepts and methods (Geneva, International Labor Office, 1990), p. 

84.

6 Normal hours are agreed-upon hours based on collective-bargaining 

agreements and legislation, whereas contractual hours constitute a fixed schedule established by individual agreement. Contractual hours are not covered in 

this article, given that the concept is not used in the United States and that data 

on contractual hours have only recently been considered as a possible source of 

data on hours.

7 Jelle Visser, “Union membership statistics in 24 countries,” Monthly Labor Review, January 2006, pp. 38–49; on the Internet at www.bls.gov/opub/

mlr/2006/01/art3full.pdf (visited May 15, 2009). 

8 The text of the 2003 Fillon Law that documents this exception is at www.

legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005635050&date

Texte=20090515 (visited May 15, 2009).

9 Still, concern over proxy and nonresponse error remains. Statistical methods are used to test and correct for these errors.

10 Jean-Pierre Maynard, Lucy Chung, and Deborah Sunter (Statistics Canada), “Measuring hours actually worked,” paper presented at meeting of Paris 

Group on Labor Compensation, Lisbon, Portugal, Sept. 29–Oct. 1, 2004.

11 Harley Frazis and Jay Stewart, “What can time-use data tell us about 

hours of work?” Monthly Labor Review, December 2004, pp. 3–9.

12 See Gerard Ypma and Bart van Ark, “Employment and Hours Worked in 

National Accounts: A Producer’s View on Methods and a User’s View on Applicability,” EU KLEMS working paper no. 10, 2006, on the Internet at www.euklems.

net/pub/no10(online).pdf (visited May 22, 2009). The national economy of a 

given country has to do with the production of individuals and national businesses, no matter where they are located, within or outside of that country. The 

domestic economy takes into account only production within the borders of the 

country. 

13 Adriana Mata Greenwood, “The hours that we work: the data we need, the 

data we get,” ILO Bulletin of Labor Statistics, 2001–1, on the Internet at www.ilo.

org/public/english/bureau/stat/download/articles/2001-1.pdf (visited May 15, 

2009). 

14 OECD Employment Outlook, 2004 (Paris, OECD, 2004), pp. 24–34. 

15 General report, Seventeenth International Conference of Labor Statisticians, November 24–December 3, 2003 (Geneva, International Labor 

Organization, 2003), p. 59, on the Internet at www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/

public/---dgreports/---integration/---stat/documents/meetingdocument/

wcms_087585.pdf (visited May 15, 2009).

16 Ibid., p. 60. The Paris Group on Labor and Compensation contributed 

in great part to the report of the 17th International Conference of Labor 

Statisticians. The Paris Group on Labor and Compensation was established 

in 1997 in response to an April 1996 recommendation by the U.N. Statistical Commission’s working party on international statistical programs, with the 

aim of examining, assessing, and reconciling sources of information used to 

measure the labor market and of contributing to improving concepts and their 

implementation. In the past 10 years, meetings of this U.N. “City Group” have 

addressed topics dealing with measurements of working time and hours worked. 

Information on the Paris Group is at the French Statistical Institute (Institut 

National des Statistiques et Études Économiques, or INSEE) Web site, www.
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 29

insee.fr/en/nom_def_met/colloques/citygroup/citygroup.htm (visited May 

22, 2009), and the U.N. Web site, unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/citygroup/

paris.htm (visited May 22, 2009). 

17 Ypma and van Ark, “Employment and Hours Worked in National 

Accounts.” 

18 The data sets use the data sources and adjustments based, respectively, on the 

GDP report of June 2007 (on the Internet at www.bls.gov/ilc; visited May 22, 2009) 

and on the data prepared for the statistical annex of OECD Employment Outlook, 2007

(Paris, OECD, 2007), on the Internet at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/27/38749309.

pdf (visited May 15, 2009). Further details on the national accounts methodology 

for some of the countries in the OECD data set also are found in Ypma and van Ark, 

“Employment and Hours Worked in National Accounts.”

19 See United Nations Statistics Division, System of National Accounts, 

1993, chapter 17, on the Internet at unstats.un.org/unsd/sna1993/tocLev8.

asp?L1=17&L2=2 (visited May 22, 2009). 

20 For more details on methods of compiling annual estimates, see Adriana Mata Greenwood, “The hours that we work: the data we need, the data 

we get,” ILO Bulletin of Labor Statistics, 2001-1 (Geneva, International Labor 

Office, 2001), on the Internet at www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/Statistics/

lang--en/docName--WCMS_087906/index.htm (visited May 22, 2009); and 

“Review of the experimental status of international comparisons of productivity—GDP per hour worked” (United Kingdom, National Statistics Office, Oct. 9, 

2002), on the Internet at www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/

review_of_hourly_ICP.pdf (visited May 22, 2009). 

21 Comparative real gross domestic product per capita and per employed person: 

16 countries, 1960–2007 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Productivity and 

Technology, July 7, 2008), on the Internet at www.bls.gov/fls/flsgdp.pdf (visited May 22, 2009). 

22 The OECD productivity database provides data on average annual hours 

actually worked. For Belgium, as well as some other countries, data sources in 

that database differ from those in the OECD Employment Outlook database. The 

BLS measure for Belgium from the OECD productivity database is based on administrative data.

23 See Table F in the Statistical Annex of OECD Employment Outlook, 2007, 

p. 263. Data also are updated annually online at OECD.stat (visited May 22, 

2009).

24 Ypma and van Ark, “Employment and Hours Worked in National Accounts,” pp. 15–16. 

25 See table A–1 for the underlying data used in the comparison. Data for 

this article were the most current at that time, but have since been updated.

26 See “Supplementary Information Used to Calculate Hours Data for Major Sector Productivity and Costs Series” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 17, 

2007), on the Internet at www.bls.gov/lpc/hoursdatainfo.htm (visited May 22, 

2009). 

27 Mary Bowler and Teresa Morisi, “Understanding the employment measures from the CPS and CES survey,” Monthly Labor Review, February 2006, pp. 

23–38; on the Internet at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/02/art2full.pdf (visited May 22, 2009). 

28 Ypma and van Ark, “Employment and Hours Worked in National 

Accounts.”

29 John Owen, “Work-time reduction in the U.S. and Western Europe,” 

Monthly Labor Review, December 1988, pp. 41–45, on the Internet at www.bls.

gov/opub/mlr/1988/12/rpt3full.pdf (visited May 22, 2009). 

30 OECD Employment Outlook 2004, pp. 24–34.

31 For a more complete review of industrial relations in the countries covered, see William K. Roche, Brian Fynes, and Terri Morrissey, “Working time 

and employment: A review of international evidence,” International Labor Review, vol. 135, no. 2 (1996), pp. 129–57; Gerhard Bosch, Peter Dawkins, and 

François Michon, Times are changing: working time in 14 industrialised countries

(Geneva, International Institute for Labor Studies, 1994); Jon C. Messenger 

(ed.), Working Time and Workers’ Preferences in Industrialized Countries, Finding the Balance (New York, Routledge, 2004); Sangheon Lee, “Working-hour 

gaps: trends and issues,” in Messenger, Working Time and Workers’ Preferences, 

pp. 29–59; and Greg Bamber and Russell Lansbury (eds.), International and 

Comparative Employment Relations: A study of industrialised market economies, 3d 

ed. (St. Leonards, U.K., Allen & Unwin, 1998).

32 See “Restriction on Dismissal, Holidays & Leave” (South Korean Ministry of Labor, Apr. 29, 2009), on the Internet at english.molab.go.kr/english/

Working/Standard_Restriction.jsp (visited May 22, 2009); and Kazuya Ogura, 

“Annual paid leave in Japan,” Japan Labor Review, Spring 2004, pp. 100–08, on 

the Internet at www.jil.go.jp/english/documents/JLR02_ogura.pdf (visited 

May 22, 2009). 

33 Prior to 1998, when the United Kingdom began complying with the European Union’s Working Time Directive (discussed in detail shortly), U.K. labor 

laws had a higher ceiling on maximum weekly hours. The United Kingdom consistently has had higher average actual and usual weekly hours worked, compared 

with its other European neighbors. Despite the legislative changes wrought by 

the European Union’s directive, many companies in the United Kingdom use the 

“individual opt-out” clause of the directive to loosen restrictions placed on maximum work hours. The limit was 60 hours a week before the country revised the 

labor law in 1998; it has since been reduced to 48. (See Catherine Barnard, Simon 

Deakin, and Richard Hobbs, “Opting out of the 48-hour week: employer necessity or individual choice? An empirical study of the operation of article 18(1)(b) 

of the Working Time Directive in the UK,” Industrial Law Journal, December 

2003, pp. 223–52.) 

34 “Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time” (European Union, Nov. 18, 2003), on the Internet at www.lex.unict.

it/eurolabor/en/documentation/dirapprovate/dir(03)-88en.pdf (visited May 

15, 2009). Recent information on efforts to revise the 2003 directive are in 

Stefan Lücking, “Political agreement reached on working time and temporary 

work directives” (Munich, European Industrial Relations Observatory On-line, 

Oct. 15, 2008), on the Internet at www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2008/07/

articles/eu0807049i.htm (visited May 15, 2009). 

35 See Working Hours (Adjustment) Act—Netherlands (Geneva, International 

Labor Organization, June 20, 2002), on the Internet at www.ilo.org/public/

english/employment/gems/eeo/law/nether/l_wa.htm (visited May 15, 2009); 

and Sheri Todd, Improving work-life balance—what are other countries doing? The 

Netherlands (Ottawa, Labor Program, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2004), on the Internet at www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/lp/spila/wlb/

pdf/improving-work-life-balance.pdf (visited May 15, 2009). 

36 For a more complete review of trends in industrial relations and hours in 

the countries covered herein, see Bamber and Lansbury, International and Comparative Employment Relations; Gerhard Bosch, “Working time tendencies and 

emerging issues,” International Labor Review, vol. 138, no. 2 (1999), pp. 131–49; 

Bosch, Dawkins, and Michon, Times are changing; Messenger, Working Time and 

Workers’ Preferences; Lee, “Working-hour gaps”; Roche, Fynes, and Morrisey, 

“Working time and employment”; “Australian social trends, 1999” (Canberra, 

Australian Bureau of Statistics, June 24, 1999), and “Australian social trends, 

2002” (Canberra, Australian Bureau of Statistics, June 4, 2002), special sections 

on employment arrangements, document 4102.0, on the Internet at www.abs.gov.

au/AUSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4102.0?opendocument?utm_id=LN (go to “Past and 

Future Releases”) (visited May 15, 2009); “Working hours: latest trends and policy 

initiatives,” in OECD Employment Outlook, 1998 (Paris, OECD, 1998), pp. 153–88; 

“Recent labor market developments and prospects,” in OECD Employment Outlook, 

1994 (Paris, OECD, 2004), pp. 17–60; and Sheri Todd, “Improving Work-Life Balance—What Are Other Countries Doing?” (Ottawa, Human Resources and Skills 

Development Canada, 2004), on the Internet at www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/lp/spila/

wlb/pdf/improving-work-life-balance.pdf (visited May 15, 2009). 

37 See Yoichi Shimada, “Future of the system of regulations on working hours 

for white-collar workers in Japan,” Japanese Journal of Labor Studies, October 2003, 

abstract on the Internet at www.jil.go.jp/english/ejournal/2003.html (visited 

May 15, 2009); Lee, “Working-hour gaps”; and Kazuya Ogura and Takashi Fujimoto, Empirical Study on Long Working Hours and Unpaid Working Time in Japan

(Tokyo, Japan Institute for Labor Policy and Training, research report no. 22, 

March 2005), on the Internet at www.jil.go.jp/english/reports/jilpt_01.html.

38 Death from overwork is an occupational hazard when one dies after 

having worked more than 24 continuous hours or 16 hours daily for 7 consecutive days. (See Takeshi Mizunoya, “An International Comparison of Unpaid 

Overtime Work Among Industrialized Countries,” originally published in 

Japanese in Journal of the Society of Economic Statistics, no. 81, 2001, on the 

Internet in English at www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/download/

articles/2002-3.pdf (visited May 22, 2009).) 
Comparisons of Hours Worked

30 Monthly Labor Review • May 200

39 Data are from the Employment Status Survey, a representative household survey that collects information on type and hours of work.

40 Susumu Noda, “Legal Issues on Long-Term Leave: Conflicting Structure 

of Leave Benefits,” Japan Labor Review, summer 2006, pp. 55–73, on the Internet at www.jil.go.jp/english/documents/JLR11_noda.pdf (click on “English” 

to view the English-language document) (visited May 22, 2009). 

41 Mizunoya, “International Comparison of Unpaid Overtime Work.” 

42 One such policy was the special part-time pension scheme that allowed 

people to work and, at the same time, draw a pension. The plan was phased out 

beginning in 1994 and was eliminated in 2001 (only to be replaced in 2003 by 

a similar scheme among state employers). (See Eskil Wadensjö, “Part-time pensions and part-time work in Sweden,” Institute for the Study of Labor Discussion Paper No. 2273 (Bonn, IZA, August 2006), on the Internet at ftp://repec.

iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp2273.pdf (visited May 22, 2009).)

43 European industrial relations observatory on-line, “2004 Annual Review 

for Sweden,” on the Internet at eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/01/feature/

se0501102f.htm (visited May 22, 2009).

44 David Rae, “How to Reduce Sickness Absences in Sweden: Lessons 

from International Experience,” OECD Economics Department Working Paper 

No. 442, in Economic Survey of Sweden 2005 (Paris, OECD, 2005). 

45 Mireille Bruyère and Odile Chagny, “Comparaisons internationales des 

durées du travail.” 

46 OECD Employment Outlook, 2004. 

47 Statistics Canada, “Labour Force Survey, Detailed Information for April 

2006,” on the Internet at www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function

=getSurvey&SurvId=3701&SurvVer=0&InstaId=13986&InstaVer=67&

DispYear=2006&SDDS=3701&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2 (visited 

May 22, 2009). 

48 Simon Bolling, “Hours of absence, overtime and hours actually worked,” 

paper prepared for the Paris group meeting, Lisbon, September 2004 (Statistics Sweden, 20044), on the Internet at www.insee.fr/en/insee-statistiquepublique/colloques/citygroup/pdf/S-2-Paper_Statistics-Sweden_040916.

pdf (visited May 22, 2009). 

49 Stephane Lhermitte, “Measurement of working time: comparison between the new and the former labour force surveys in France,” paper prepared 

for the Paris Group Meeting, London, September 2003, on the Internet at 

www.insee.fr/en/insee-statistique-publique/colloques/citygroup/pdf/

France-comparison-ALFS-CLFS.pdf (visited May 22, 2009). 

50 See Helge Naesheim, “Statistics on working time, report from Norway,” 

paper prepared for the Paris Group meeting, London, September 4–5, 2003 (Statistics Norway, July 2, 2003), on the Internet at www.insee.fr/en/insee-statistiquepublique/colloques/citygroup/pdf/Norway-general.pdf; and “Definition and 

measurement of annual hours,” paper prepared for the Paris group meeting, Lisbon, 

September 2004 (Statistics Norway, Aug. 28, 2004), on the Internet at www.insee.

fr/en/insee-statistique-publique/colloques/citygroup/pdf/Norway-3-countrypaper.pdf(visited May 22, 2009). 
Monthly Labor Review • May 2009 

 

1980........ 1,819 1,824 1,802 1,807 2,121 – 2,876 2,803 – 1,

1981........ 1,809 1,807 1,801 1,807 2,106 – 2,892 2,787 – 

1982........ 1,806 1,795 1,784 1,787 2,104 – 2,905 

1983........ 1,825 1,804 1,780 1,784 2,095 – 2,923 2,88

1984........ 1,843 1,820 1,782 1,788 2,108 – 2,919 2,865

1985........ 1,841 1,825 1,790 1,802 2,093 – 2,894 2,865 1,799 

1986........ 1,833 1,806 1,789 1,799 2,097 – 2,923 2,803 1,77

1987........ 1,838 1,809 1,797 1,809 2,096 – 2,892 2,881 

1988........ 1,842 1,823 1,807 1,828 2,092 – 2,846 2,902 1,750

1989........ 1,855 1,837 1,801 1,822 2,070 – 2,742 2,834 1,741 

1990........ 1,836 1,818 1,788 1,804 2,031 – 2,688 2,798 1

1991........ 1,823 1,810 1,767 1,780 1,998 – 2,672 2,777 1

1992........ 1,826 1,802 1,759 1,779 1,965 – 2,650 2,730 1,6

1993........ 1,835 1,819 1,763 1,805 1,905 – 2,667 2,74

1994........ 1,842 1,836 1,780 1,821 1,898 – 2,651 2,7

1995....... 1,849 1,855 1,775 1,810 1,884 – 2,658 2,730 

1996........ 1,840 1,852 1,784 1,826 1,892 1,924 2,648 2

1997........ 1,850 1,865 1,767 1,809 1,865 1,894 2,592 2,

1998........ 1,852 1,879 1,767 1,804 1,842 1,872 2,496 2

1999........ 1,853 1,887 1,769 1,807 1,810 1,851 2,502 2,621 1

2000........ 1,841 1,864 1,768 1,802 1,821 1,865 2,520 2,631 

2001........ 1,819 1,841 1,762 1,793 1,809 1,846 2,506 2,6

2002........ 1,814 1,822 1,744 1,775 1,798 1,832 2,46

2003........ 1,806 1,795 1,734 1,761 1,799 1,832 2,434 2

2004........ 1,809 1,797 1,752 1,779 1,787 1,836 2,394 2,5

2005........ 1,804 1,793 1,738 1,769 1,775 1,823 2,3

2006........ 1,804 1,792 1,738 1,766 1,784 1,832 2,30

1980.............................................. 1,751 1,698 – – 1,580 1,580 2,003 1

1981 ................................................. 1,729 1,683 – – 1,570 1,570 1,968 1

1982 ................................................. 1,718 1,681 – – 1,559 1,559 1,946 1,

1983.............................................. 1,705 1,679 – – 1,553 1,553 1,912 1,

1984.............................................. 1,694 1,672 – – 1,548 1,548 

1985 ................................................. 1,671 1,645 – – 1,542 1,542 

1986 ................................................. 1,652 1,638 – – 1,538 1,5

1987 ................................................. 1,629 1,631 1,540 – 1,511 1,511 1,838 

1988 ................................................. 1,624 1,629 1,509 – 1,513 1,513 1,83

1989 ................................................. 1,601 1,605 1,497 – 1,511 1,510 1,822 

1990.............................................. 1,578 1,567 1,504 – 1,503 1,503 1,8

1991 ................................................. 1,548 1,548 1,471 – 1,500 1,500 1,83

1992 ................................................. 1,566 1,566 1,447 – 1,510 1,510 1,82

1993.............................................. 1,550 1,550 1,419 – 1,507 1,507 1,816 1,

1994 ................................................. 1,547 1,547 1,411 – 1,505 1,505 1,816 1

1995 ................................................. 1,534 1,534 1,391 1,516 1,488 1,48

1996.............................................. 1,518 1,518 1,421 1,524 1,483 1,483 1,

1997.............................................. 1,509 1,509 1,414 1,513 1,478 1,478 1,813 

1998 ................................................. 1,503 1,503 1,400 1,497 1,476 1,

1999 ................................................. 1,492 1,492 1,381 1,492 1,473 1,474 1,817 

2000.............................................. 1,473 1,473 1,372 1,490 1,455 1,455

2001.............................................. 1,458 1,458 1,372 1,490 1,429 1,429 1,817 

2002.............................................. 1,445 1,445 1,348 1,472 1,414 1,41

2003 ................................................. 1,439 1,439 1,363 1,463 1,399 1,399 1,800 

2004.............................................. 1,442 1,442 1,362 1,460 1,417 1,417 1,7

2005.............................................. 1,437 1,437 1,375 1,448 1,421 1,421

2006.............................................. 1,436 1,436 1,391 1,457 1,407 1

1 Data prior to 1991 are for West Germany.

Table A-1. Average annual hours actually worked, all employed persons, 13 countries, 1980–2006

OECD BLS OECD BLS OECD BLS OECD BLS OECD BLS OECD BLS OECD BLS

United States Canada Japan South Korea Belgium Denmark France

 Germany 1 Netherlands Norway Spain Sweden United Kingdom

OECD BLS OECD BLS OECD BLS OECD BLS OECD BLS OECD BLS

Year