View PDF

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

International Comparisons
of Unemployment
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
1978
Bulletin 1979







L ibrary of C o n gress C a ta login g in P u b lica tion D ata

U nited S ta te s . Bureau of Labor S ta t is t i c s .
In te rn a tio n a l com parisons of -unemployment.
(guPPe-tin — Bureau of Labor S ta t is t i c s 1979)
A uthor: Constance S o rre n tin o .
B ibliography: p.
p. Unemployed. I . S o rre n tin o , Constance.
I I T itle . I I I . S e rie s: U nited S ta te s . Bureau o f
Labor S ta t is t i c s . B u lle tin ; 1979HD5706.U631+ 1978
331.1*37
77-28957

International Comparisons
of Unemployment
U.S. Department ot Labor
Ray Marshall, Secretary
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Julius Shiskin, Commissioner
August 1978
Bulletin 1979







For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
Stock Number 029-001-02215-8

Preface

In 1961, the President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics
(Gordon Committee) requested that the Bureau of Labor Statistics investigate the international
comparability of unemployment statistics. The resulting study described the definitions and con­
cepts used in seven foreign countries and presented unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts
for 1960. Subsequent to the Gordon Committee study, the Bureau initiated a continuing program
of international labor force comparisons. To date, eight articles on unemployment comparisons have
been published. Comparisons are presently made for eight foreign countries and are done on a quar­
terly and monthly basis as well as on the annual basis of the original study. The primary purposes of
this bulletin are to bring together all of the Bureau’s work on international unemployment compari­
sons and to describe in detail the methods of adjusting foreign unemployment rates to U.S. concepts.
Continuing contacts have been maintained with each of the countries covered, and there has
also been correspondence and cooperation with international organizations such as the Statistical
Office of the European Communities, the International Labour Office (ILO), and the Organiza­
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). A preliminary version of chapter 1 and
appendix B of this bulletin was prepared for the OECD in 1975 and was subsequently circulated
to ail member countries of the Organization. In June 1976, the paper was presented by the author,
Constance Sorrentino, to the first meeting of the OECD Working Party on Employment and Un­
employment Statistics. Many helpful comments were received from the member countries.
The bulletin was prepared in the Bureau’s Office of Productivity and Technology by Con­
stance Sorrentino under the direction of Arthur Neef and John H. Chandler, Chief, Division of
Foreign Labor Statistics and Trade. Joyanna'Moy assisted in the research, tabulations, and writing
of the bulletin. The data presented were those available as of December 1977.
Material in this publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced without per­
mission. Please credit the Bureau of Labor Statistics and cite the name and number of the publi­
cation.




in




Contents

Introduction. .........................................................

Page
1

Chapters:
1. The international measurement of unemployment..................................................................................................
4
Development of international standards. ............................................................................................................... 4
The U.S. definition ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Sources of unemployment statistics ........................................................................................................................5
Concepts and definitions...............
6
Adjustment to U.S. concepts.......................................................................................................................... .. 11
Limitations.................. . ........................................................................................................................................14
2. Unemployment and employment, 1959-77. ..................................................................................................................... 16
Unemployment....................
16
Employment ...................................................... ......................................................................................................22
Country developments............................
26
3. Unemployment by age and sex.............................. .......................................... ................................................................ 35
Teenage unemployment..................
36
Unemployment of older workers.............................................................................................................. ............ 39
Unemployment by sex ...................................................... ........................................... .............................. ............ 40
4. Participation rates and employment-population ratios......................................................... .........................................41
Comparative levels and trends..................................................................... .. ....................................................... 41
Age structure of participation rates............... .................................. ..........................................................
.45
Cyclical trends in participation.................................................
46
5. Factors contributing to differences in unemployment levels........................................................................................... 48
Labor force growth ..................... ........................................................................................................................ . .48
Labor force composition,...................................................................................................................... ................. 49
Labor migration ....................................................
51
Seasonality. . ................ ....................................................................................................................... ....................54
Income maintenance arrangements............................................................................................................................55
Labor market programs............................
60
Factors affecting youth unemployment .................................................................... .............................. ..............62
Legal and social factors............................................................................................................. ..............................65
67
Conclusion. ............................................................................
Charts:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Unemployment rates, selected years, 1959-76 ................................................................................
2
Unemployment rates, 1959-76 .....................................................................................
16
Annual percent changes in civilian employment, 1960-76 ....................................
23
United States: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 .................................. .. . . . 26
Canada: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 ...............
27
Australia: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1964-76 ......................................................28
Japan: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 .............
29
France: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76.......................................................... 29
Germany: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 . ...................................................30
Great Britain: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 . ........................................... 31




v

Contents—Conti nued:
Page

Chart s- Continue d:
11. Italy: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1960-76 .......................................... . ..............32
12. Sweden: Working-age population, labor force, and employment, 1961-76 ...............
33
13. Youth unemployment rates, 1968 and 1976 ..................
38
14. Ratio of teenage to adult unemployment rates, 1968 and 1976 ....................
39
15. Age structure of labor force participation rates, 1973 .......................
45
Tables:

1. Official unemployment rates and rates adjusted to U.S.
definitions, 1960 and 1976 ........................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Synopsis of unemployment statistics: Definitions recommended
by the International Labour Office and definitions used in
9 countries................................................................................... ...................... .. ................................................7
3. Labor force, employment, and unemployment, 1959-76................
17
4. Average unemployment rates, selected periods, 1959-76.......................................
20
5. Highest and lowest unemployment rates, 1959-76 ......................................................................
20
6. Quarterly unemployment rates, 1970-77 .....................................................................................................................21
7. Employment growth rates, selected periods, 1959-76 ....................
.22
8a. Employment by economic sector, selected years, 1960-76................................................................................
24
8b. Percent distribution of employment by economic sector,
selected years, 1960-76............... .................................. .......................................................................................25
9. Sweden: Effect of labor market programs on unemployment,
selected years, 1961-76............................................................................................................................ ...............33
10. Unemployment rates by age and sex, 1968,1970, and 1974-76 ..........................
35
11. Ratios of teenage to adult unemployment rates, 1968,1970, and
1974-76.................................. ..................................................................................................................................37
12. Labor force participation rates by sex, 1960-76. ............................................................
.42
13. Employment-population ratios, 1960-76 . ..........................
.43
14. Labor force participation rates by age and sex, 1973 ............................ ................................................. . . . . . .44
15. Growth rates of population, labor force, and employment,
1960-76...................................................................................... ................................................................................ 49
16. Women and teenagers in the labor force, 1960, 1971,
1975, and 1976. ............. ...................................................................................................................................... 50
17. Foreign workers in Germany, 1960 and 1965-76 . .......................
52
18. Estimated number of foreign workers by country of immigration
and emigration, 1975 .................................... ..........................................................................................................53
19. Construction industry: Range of indexes of employment, 1965
and 1975 ...............
54
20. Unemployment insurance systems, mid-1975 .............................................................................................................56
21. Unemployment benefits as a percent of average earnings,
manufacturing workers, mid-1975 ...................................................................................................
58
22. Percent of 16- to 19-year-olds in educational institutions,
all levels, 1966-72 .................................................................
64

Appendixes:
A. International Labour Office definitions.............................................................................. ................................... . .69
B. Sources of data and methods of adjustment:Nine countries...........................................
70
United States.................................................... . .......................................................................................... .. 70
Canada ..........................................
73
Australia......................................................................................*............................ * .........................
.77
Japan ..................
80
France.....................................................................................................................................
.86



vi

Contents— Continued:

Page

Appendixes—Continued:
Germany....................................... ..................................................................................................................
Great Britain.............................................................................................................................................. . 108
Italy.......... ...................................
124
Sweden.................................
137
C. Methods of adjustment by age and sex................................................. • * - .........................................................147
D. Adjustment of participation rates and employment-population
ratios...................................................................................................................................................................*53
E. European Community labor force surveys.............................................................................................................154
F. Unemployment rates on a total labor force basis............................................................................................... 157

Appendix tables:
B-l. Japan' Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76 ............................................................ .86
B-2. France: Unemployment as recorded by labor force surveys,
1960-76. ................
93
B-3. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from October surveys
to U.S. concepts, 1960-66. .......................................................................................................................94
B-4. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from March surveys to
95
U.S. concepts, 1963-76. ......................................................................
B-5. France: Adjustment of labor force data from October surveys
to U.S. concepts, 1960-66. ......................................................................................................................... 97
B-6. France: Adjustment of labor force data from March surveys
to U.S. concepts, 1963-76. ............................. ................. ........................................................................ 98
B-7, France: Labor force and unemployment data before and after
adjustment to U.S. concepts, 1959-76.....................................................................................................99
B-8. Germany: Statistics on the registered unemployed, 1959-76 .............................
100
B-9. Germany: Unemployment according to the Microcensus, 1959-76 ................
104
B-10. Germany: Adjustment of Microcensus unemployment from early-in-month
to end-of-month estimate, 1959-62.......... .............................. ............................................................ 104
B-l 1. Germany: Adjustment ratios using alternative methods..........................................................................105
B-l2. Germany: Estimated annual average Microcensus unemployed
and unemployment rates based on alternative methods. ................................................................... 106
B-13. Germany: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76...............................................................107
B-14. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the
1961 census .................................................................
112
B-l5. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the
1966 census .................................................................
113
B-l6. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the
1971 General Household Survey. .........................................................................................................113
B-l 7. Great Britain: Calculation of the unregistered unemployed,
1959-71..................
122
B-18. Great Britain: Adjustment of labor force data to U.S. concepts, 1959-76...............................................124
B-19. Italy: Selected results from special labor force surveys,
April 1973 and April 1975 ....................................... ............................................................................. 132
B-20. Italy: Major results of the January 1977 labor force survey.....................................................................132
B-21. Italy: Calculation of unreported employment, 1959-76 ...............................
135
B-22. Italy: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76...................................................................... 136
B-23. Sweden: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1961-76.................................................................139
C-L Japan: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts,
by age and sex, 1968 ....................................................... ................. ................................... ..
148
C-2. France: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts,
by age and sex, March 1968.................................................................................................................... 149




vii

Contents—Continued:

Appendix tables-Continued:
Page
C-3. Germany: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts,
by age and sex, April 1968 ........................................................................................................... ..
150
C-4. Great Britain: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S.
concepts by age and sex, 1971.............................................................................................................. 151
C-5. Sweden: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts,
by age and sex, 1968 ............................................................................................................................. 152
E-l. Population of the European Community by type of activity,
spring1973 ..........................................................................................
F -l. Total labor force (including Armed Forces) and unemployment rates
adjusted toU.S. concepts, 1959-76..................................................................
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................................................................




viii

158

Introduction

have a very large effect in most cases. Only negligible
changes, or none at all, have been made in the unemploy­
ment figures for Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, and
Sweden (table l)5.In the case of Germany, the adjustment
to U.S. definitions has resulted in a moderate reduction of
the official figures on unemployment. Upward revisions of
the unemployment figures for Great Britain and France
have been substantial, in Britain’s case amounting to over
40 percent in years of low unemployment and about 14
percent in recent years of high unemployment. French fig­
ures adjusted to U.S. definitions were 50 percent higher
than the official French figures in the early 1960’s, but the
official and the adjusted figures have moved closer to each
other over the years and, in 1976, were almost identical.
The adjustments to U.S. concepts do not make a
great deal of difference in the ranking of countries accord­
ing to unemployment rates. The countries at the top and
the bottom of the ranking are usually not affected. How­
ever, the rankings in the middle of the array are often
changed after adjustments are made.
The purpose of the original BLS study for the Gordon
Committee was to evaluate the widespread impression that
the high rate of unemployment in the United States, as
compared to most other industrial countries, was largely
due to differences in methods of measurement. The major
conclusion drawn from the Bureau’s study was that differ­
ences in collection procedures and definitions were only a
minor factor in accounting for the higher level of unemploy-

Unemployment, like most phenomena in the social
sciences, can be defined in various ways. No single defini­
tion could possibly satisfy all analytical and ideological
interests. For example, Julius Shiskin has identified an
array of seven unemployment rates for the United States,
going from a very narrow to a very broad view.1 The nar­
rowest definition covered only persons unemployed 15
weeks or longer; the broadest included all unemployed per­
sons seeking full-time work and half of those seeking parttime work, half of the total number of persons working
part time for economic reasons, and all discouraged workers.
The current official definition of unemployment in
the United States represents the total number of persons
not working but available for and actively seeking work.
This definition has had widespread support from various
study groups and was recommended by the Committee to
Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics
(Gordon Committee) established by President Kennedy in
1961 ? The definition will be reviewed again by the Nation­
al Commission on Employment and Unemployment Sta­
tistics.3 The Commission has broad responsibility to ex­
amine the concepts, methods, and procedures involved in
collecting, analyzing, and presenting the employment data
and to recommend ways to improve the current system.
This bulletin presents adjustments of foreign unem­
ployment rates to the U.S. concept of unemployment. The
U.S. concept was chosen as the basis for comparison be­
cause it would furnish comparisons on terms most familiar
to American users. Also, U.S. concepts follow closely the
international standards recommended by the International
Labour Office (ILO).4 Most foreign countries have attempt­
ed to follow the ILO definitions, but have made adapta­
tions and interpretations to suit national needs.
The basic labor force and unemployment statistics of
the foreign countries studied, with the exceptions of Aus­
tralia and Canada, require adjustments to bring them into
closer comparability with U.S. data. Adjustments are made
for all known major definitional differences. The accuracy
of the adjustments depends on the availability of relevant
information; in some instances, it is necessary to make esti­
mates based on incomplete data. Therefore, it is possible to
achieve only approximate comparability among countries.
Nevertheless, the adjusted figures provide a better basis for
international comparisons than the figures regularly pub­
lished by each country.
The adjustments made to the national data do not




Julius Shiskin, “Employment and Unemployment: The Dough­
nut or the Hole,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1976, pp. 3-10.
2President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemploy­
ment Statistics, Measuring Employment and Unemployment (Wash­
ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962).
3The Commission was established under the Emergency Jobs
Programs Extension Act of 1976, PL 94-444. See John E. Bregger,
“Establishment of a New Employment Statistics Review Commis­
sion,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1977, pp. 14-20.
International Labour Office, Eighth International Conference of
Labour Statisticians, Employment and Unemployment Statistics,
Report IV (Geneva, ILO, 1954).
5Italy made a major revision in survey methods in 1977. The
comparative data shown in this study are based on a preliminary
analysis of the new Italian data. For a discussion of the problems
involved, see appendix B.

1

Chart 1. Unemployment Rates, Selected Years, 1959-76

0

1




2

3

4

5

4

6

5

6

Percent

Percent

2

Although the unemployment data for foreign coun­
tries have been adjusted for statistical comparability, inter­
country differences in unemployment rates reflect sub­
stantial differences in social attitudes and institutional ar­
rangements, as well as in economic performance. Differ­
ences in the demographic and sectoral composition of the
labor force also affect the unemployment rates. Such nondefinitional differences are investigated in chapter 5. Ap­
pendix B presents detailed descriptions of each country’s
data and the methods of adjustment to U.S. concepts.
It should be kept in mind that unemployment is
only one measure of underutilization of the labor force.
Underutilization may also take the form of underemploy­
ment. The term underemployment is usually used to refer
to persons in the labor force who involuntarily work part
time (“visible” underemployment) or who are underutilized
in terms of some efficiency or income standard (“invisible”
underemployment).7 Because of difficulties in quantify­
ing invisible underemployment, statistical measures are
usually confined to measuring the number of persons work­
ing part time for economic reasons. It would be very useful
to develop broader measures of underutilization, but the
most that has been attempted here is to mention other
relevant variables which are available for each country.
Comprehensive and comparable data on labor underutiliza­
tion have not yet been developed. The Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development is doing some
experimental work in the area of setting up a standardized
system for monitoring all facets of the labor market. How­
ever, much more data must become available before such a
system can come into being.

Table 1. Official unemployment rates and rates adjusted
to U.S. definitions, 1960 and 1976
( P e r c e n t) ___________ ________
1960
Country

United States .
Canada . . . .
Australia . . .
Japan . . . .
France . . . .
Germany . .
Great Britain
Italy . . . . .
Sweden . . .

1976

Official
rate

Adjusted to
U.S.
definitions

Official
rate

Adjusted to
U.S.
definitions

5.5
7.0
U)
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.5
4.0
3 1.4

5.5
7.0
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.1
2.2
3.8
3 1.4

7.7
7.1
4.4
2.0
4.5
4.6
5.6
3.7
1.6

7.7
7.1
4.4
2.0
4.6
3.6
26.4
3.6
1.6

1 Not available.
2 Preliminary estimate.
3 1961.

ment in the United States.6 After adjustment of such
differences to U.S. concepts, the rate of unemployment in
this country in 1960 was considerably higher than that for
any of the other seven countries studied except Canada.
Chart 1 shows how the nine countries compared dur­
ing 3 selected years and on the average for 1959-76. The
1976 unemployment rate was unusually high for the United
States and the year 1969 was one of relatively low U.S.
unemployment. In both years, the United States ranked
near the top in the array of countries.
Chapter 1 of this bulletin presents a discussion of the
international measurement of unemployment and a general
“Comparative Levels of Unemployment in Industrial Coun­
description of the methods used to adjust foreign unemploy­
ment rates to U.S. concepts. The description of methods tries,” by Robert I. Myers and John H. Chandler, appendix A of
precedes the presentation of results (chapter 2) in the be­ Measuring Employment and Unemployment, President’s Committee
and Unemployment Statistics
lief that some knowledge of the procedures involved will to Appraise Employment Office, 1962). This report was (Washington, Government Printing
also pub­
lead to greater understanding of the results. Breakdowns of lished in a shorter version in the August and September 1962 issues
the aggregate unemployment rates into their age and sex of the Monthly Labor Review.
7 For a detailed description of the concept of underemploy­
components are described in chapter 3. Two other signifi­
cant labor market indicators—participation rates and em­ ment, see Measurement o f Underemployment: Concepts and Meth­
ployment-population ratios—are analyzed in chapter 4.
ods (Geneva, International Labour Office, 1966).




3

Chapter 1. The International Measurement of Unemployment

The earliest unemployment statistics were compiled
by trade unions in order to determine how many of their
members were temporarily unemployed. Although records
of unemployment among their members have generally
been kept by trade unions since their earliest days, it was
only in the early 1900’s that governments began to collect
and publish such statistics. In some countries data were also
gathered from unemployment funds paid out by the govern­
ment to unemployed persons. At the beginning of World
War I the usefulness of the unemployment statistics pub­
lished regularly by about a dozen countries was limited,
since the data were neither nationally representative nor
internationally comparable.1
With the development of mass unemployment in the
1930’s, the need for better unemployment statistics became
apparent. At that time, although countries were still pub­
lishing unemployment funds data and trade union statis­
tics, the majority of “official” unemployment statistics
were derived from information collected by employment
offices on the registered unemployed. Apart from attempts
in some decennial censuses, there were no direct measure­
ments of the number of jobless persons at the beginning
of the 1930’s.
In the mid-1930’s, in the United States, experiments
with direct surveys of the population occurred for the first
time. The unemployed were then defined as those who
were not working but who were “willing and able to work.”
As this criterion appeared too dependent upon the inter­
pretation and attitudes of the persons being interviewed, a
set of concepts was developed in the late 193Cfs according
to which an individual was classified as unemployed if his
actual activity within a reference period was “not working
and looking for work.” This criterion constitutes the basis
of the modern definition of unemployment.

developing uniform standards has been played by the Inter­
national Conference of Labour Statisticians, sponsored by
the International Labour Office (ILO).
As early as 1925 the ILO prepared a report on meth­
ods of measuring unemployment for the Second Interna­
tional Conference of Labour Statisticians. The Conference
recommended that, where no satisfactory data could be ob­
tained from other sources, “an attempt should be made to
obtain information on the extent of unemployment through
general population censuses or that special inquiries relating
to the whole population or to an adequate sample of the
population be made from time to time.”2
The Sixth International Conference of Labour Sta­
tisticians adopted a resolution in 1947 defining unemploy­
ment, employment, and the labor force mainly on the basis
of the activity of each individual during a specified period.
This “actual status” concept was a departure from the
“gainfully occupied” concept commonly used by most
countries in the past, according to which the classification
of a person was not related strictly to activity during any
specified time period, but more to a “usual activity.”
The “actual status” approach was first used in a na­
tional census in the 1940 Census of the United States. This
approach is now the worldwide standard, with various
modifications.
The Eighth International Conference of Labour Sta­
tisticians, meeting in 1954, approved definitions of em­
ployment, unemployment, and the labor force which are
now widely acknowledged, though by no means generally
observed.3
In summary, the ILO definitions (given in detail in
appendix A) include as unemployed all persons who, dur­
ing a specified time period, were without a job, available
for work, and seeking work. Also included are persons who
had made arrangements to start a new job at a later date
and persons on temporary or indefinite layoff without pay.
Persons in these two categories did not have to be seeking
work. The labor force is defined as the sum of the unem­
ployed and the employed. The employed consist of all
persons who, during a specified time period, performed

Development of international standards

In view of the different needs of countries and the
differences in their facilities for producing statistics, it
has never been seriously proposed that all countries should
adopt the same system for measuring unemployment. A
good deal of work has been done, however, toward develop­
ing uniform international standards and definitions in em­
ployment and unemployment statistics. The major role in

The International Standardization o f Labour Statistics (Geneva,
International Labour Office, 1959).
2r

3International Labour Office, Eighth International Conference
of Labour Statisticians, op. cit. See also The International Standard­
ization of Labour Statistics, Studies and Reports, New Series, No.
53 (Geneva, ILO, 1959).

1For further information, see “Statistics of Unemployment
among Workers’ Organizations,” International Labour Review,
January 1921, pp. 115-20.



4

some work for pay or profit, including the self-employed.
Unpaid family workers are included if they worked for at
least one-third of the normal working time during the
specified period. Persons with a job but not at work be­
cause of illness, industrial dispute, vacation, etc. are re­
garded as employed. The Armed Forces may be included or
excluded from the labor force.
The ILO concepts are still officially recognized, and
the 12th Conference of Labour Statisticians in 1973 did
not find any need to modify them. However, the defini­
tions leave much room for interpretation. For example, the
definition of unemployment indicates that a person should
be seeking work to be counted as unemployed (unless wait­
ing to begin a new job or on temporary layoff). However,
no mention is made of how actively a person must be seek­
ing work or within what period of time in the past a person
must have tested the job market. The definitions state that
an unemployed person should be available for work, but
they do not require a test of current availability. The
Armed Forces may be either included or excluded from the
labor force. Also, the ILO definitions recommend a lower
age limit for the statistics, but do not specify how that age
limit should be determined. Further, the ILO definitions
do not specify the reference period for the statistics, allow­
ing it to be either 1 day or 1 week.
The theory behind the ILO’s standard definitions is
that countries having different types of statistical systems
can produce unemployment statistics that are reasonably
comparable from country to country. In fact, however,
relatively few countries strictly observe the international
definitions, and, even among those that do, there is room
for some divergence, since the ILO definitions are not al­
together rigid on certain points. It is for these reasons that
adjustments in the figures for various countries are neces­
sary if comparisons of unemployment levels are to be made.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and De­
velopment (OECD) has accepted the ILO definitions and
has attempted to promote their use among its 24 member
countries. Building upon the work done by BLS, the OECD
has attempted to estimate unemployment rates on a sta­
tistically consistent basis.4 The OECD has made estimates
for Finland, Norway, and Spain as well as the countries
studied by BLS. The OECD figures are based on the total
labor force rather than the civilian labor force. BLS esti­
mates on a total labor force basis are shown in appendix F.
The Statistical Office of the European Communities
has also been working to achieve comparability of employ­
ment and unemployment statistics among its nine members.
Labor force surveys using common definitions were con­
ducted in the member countries in October 1960, in the
spring of 1968 through 1971, and thenceforth, every 2
years. A description of these surveys appears in appendix E.

The U.S. definition

The definitions used in the U.S. labor force survey
follow the general outline of the ILO definitions, but are
more specific. The U.S. definitions, described in detail in
appendix B, require unemployed persons to take active job­
seeking steps within the 4-week period including the ref­
erence week. Only persons on layoff who were waiting to
be called back to their job and persons waiting to start a
new job within 30 days do not have to actively test the job
market to be classified as unemployed. Also, unemployed
persons must be available to begin work immediately, ex­
cept for temporary illness, and there is a survey question to
test current availability.
The minimum age limit for the U.S. survey is 16, a
point left undecided in the ILO definition. Also left unde­
cided by the ILO was whether labor force status should be
measured on a particular day or throughout a particular
week. The U.S. survey uses a week as its basic reference
period.
U.S. labor force survey data are collected for the'
civilian noninstitutional population only. Persons in the
Armed Forces are excluded from the employment and
labor force totals.
Sources of unemployment statistics

To obtain their official unemployment data, the
countries studied use one of two systems for measuring un­
employment: employment office registrations and labor
force sample surveys. Employment office data generally
relate to the number of persons on the register as of one
day during a month. The figures may include persons al­
ready employed who are seeking more work or a change of
jobs. The number of job applicants registered depends on
the way the system is organized, the extent to which per­
sons are accustomed to register, and the inducements for
them to do so. Changes in legislation and administrative
regulations can affect the continuity of the registrations
series.
Labor force sample surveys record the labor force
status of a person as of a reference week. Sample surveys
usually yield the most comprehensive statistics on unem­
ployment since they include groups of persons who are not
covered in unemployment statistics obtained by other
methods. New entrants and reentrants into the labor force,
for example, would be enumerated as unemployed in labor
force surveys if they are looking for work, whereas they
may not register as unemployed because they are ineligible
to collect unemployment benefits.
Labor force sample surveys provide a better basis for
international unemployment comparisons than statistics on
registrations at employment offices. Such surveys have been
developed specifically to measure the employment status
4 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and characteristics of the population above a certain age.
Economic Outlook, July 1976, pp. 32 and 106-10.
They are not dependent upon changes in legislation and



5

regulations. Because their central purpose is the same, these
surveys have many features in common, although inevitably
there are special features of the work in each country which
reflect national circumstances and needs. In contrast, the
coverage of registrations statistics varies widely from country
to country. In some countries, for example, married women
may accept the option of not joining the unemployment
insurance system, and, hence, are not able to collect unem­
ployment benefits if they lose their jobs. Other uninsured
groups, such as first-time jobseekers, also have no financial
incentive to register.
Sample surveys often collect a wealth of information
which can be utilized to make adjustments to a common
conceptual framework. Moreover, such surveys are better
equipped than registrations data to solve some of the follow­
ing problems of measurement:
1. Determination of the reasons why some people
have jobs but are not working (vacation, illness,
layoff).
2. Identification of persons currently seeking work
to start at a future time (e.g., students looking in
early spring for a summer job) who are not really
currently available to begin work.
3. Identification of persons who have ceased their
jobseeking activities because they have found a job
to which they expect to report at a future date,
but for which they are immediately available.
4. Identification of “discouraged workers” who do
not seek work because they believe that there is
no work available.
All the above problems concerning unemployment
measurement are more readily solved through labor force
surveys than through data on placements or unemployment
insurance registrants. In practice, statistics based on registra­
tions, by not including the nonregistered unemployed, have
a downward bias; on the other hand, they tend to generate
inflated figures because of the temporary inclusion of per­
sons who have found work and are actually working and of
people not seriously interested in finding work but who
register for social benefits or to maintain eligibility for a
pension. Persons who are working would be classified as
employed in a labor force sample survey and those not
really “looking for work” would most likely be recorded as
“not in the labor force.”
Of the countries studied here, all currently conduct
labor force sample surveys. Surveys provide the “official”
statistics on the unemployed in Australia, Canada, Italy,
Japan, Sweden, and the United States.5 In France, Ger­
many, and Great Britain, the regularly published unem­
ployment figures refer to the registered unemployed. In
addition, France and Germany have conducted labor force

surveys since the 1950’s, and Great Britain initiated a
monthly household sample survey in 1971. However, the
registered unemployed series remains the “official” un­
employment series in all three countries partly because
registration results are available more frequently and on
a much more timely basis than the survey results.

unemployed statistics since such statistics are available monthly
while the Labor force survey statistics are available only quarterly.
Sweden also uses registration data widely even though monthly
survey data are available.

6Prior to 1967, the U.S. survey questionnaire also did not specify
a time period for jobseeking. It was probably interpreted by some
jobseekers to refer only to the survey week itself.

Concepts and definitions

Definitions of unemployment and the labor force
differ from country to country, even when the same type
of data collection method is used. Appendix B to this study
presents detailed descriptions of the unemployment con­
cepts used in the nine countries. Table 2 provides a synopsis
of the major areas of difference among the countries. For
France, Germany, and Great Britain, two columns are
shown, one covering the “official” employment office
series and the other covering the labor force survey. The
entries in table 2 represent the current status of the statis­
tics. It should be pointed out that changes have been made
over the years in all the countries so that different entries in
some areas would have been required in earlier years. The
following discussion focuses upon the items shown in table
2. Unless otherwise specified, labor force survey data rather
than employment office data are described here for France,
Germany, and Great Britain.
Age limits. The ILO recommends that countries establish a
lower age limit for labor force statistics, but does not specify
what that limit should be or how it should be determined.
The lower age limit in the U.S. survey is 16, and for the
other countries it ranges from 14 to 16. Only Sweden has
an upper age limit as well as a lower one.

Reference period. The ILO definition recommends that the
reference period for labor force statistics be a specified day
or week. In all of the labor force surveys studied here, the
general reference period is a week. Registration statistics,
however, use a reference period of 1 day.
For jobseeking activities by unemployed persons, the
reference period has been expanded beyond 1 week in the
sample surveys of some countries. In the United States,
Canada, and Australia, a person is counted as unemployed
if he sought work within the 4 weeks including the refer­
ence week. In Sweden, a 60-day period for jobseeking is
allowed.
In several of the labor force surveys, the allowable
period for jobseeking activities is ambiguous.6 In France,
Germany, Great Britain, and Italy the survey questionnaire
does not clearly specify the jobseeking period. Thus, some
persons may interpret it to be the reference week of the
5 Australia and Italy also give wide distribution to their registered




6

Table 2. Synopsis of unemployment statistics: Definitions recommended by the International Labour Office
and definitions used in 9 countries
Item

ILO definition

United
States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Source........................................................

Unspecified

Labor
force
survey

Labor
force
survey

Labor
force
survey

Labor
force
survey

Frequency ..................................................
Age lim its ..................................................

Unspecified
Unspecified

Reference p erio d ......................................

1 day or
1 week
1 day or
1 week

Monthly
16 years
and over
1 week

Monthly
15 years
and over
1 week

Quarterly
15 years
and over
1 week

Monthly
15 years
and over
1 week

Labor
Employ­
force
ment
survey
office reg­
istrations
Monthly
Annual
None
15 years
and over
1 day
1 week

4 weeks

4 weeks

4 weeks

1 week

1 day

Unspeci­
fied1

Unspecified

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Included

—

Included

Excluded if
worked less
than onethird of nor­
mal working
time

Excluded

Included

Excluded

Included

Included

Included

Included3

Included4

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded, but
no test of
workseeking

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Included

Included

Included
Unspecified

Included
Included

Included
Included7

Included
Included

Excluded,
but no
test of
work­
seeking
(6)
Included

included
Excluded

Included
Included

Included

Included

Included

Included

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded,
but no test
of avail­
ability

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded,
but no
test of
avail­
ability

Excluded

included

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Included8
Excluded
Persons
over 60
years old
and re­
ceiving
"income
guaran­
tee" pay­
ments;
persons
seeking
part-time
work

Unspecified

Civilian
labor
force

Civilian
labor
force

Civilian
labor
force

Total
labor
force

Reference period for jobseeking............
Whether included in labor force:
Career military personnel..................
Unpaid family workers working
less than 15 h o u r s ........................

Whether included in unemployed:2
Persons on la y o ff
................................
Persons who have not actively
sought work5 ................................

Temporarily ill jobseekers..................
Students seeking w o rk ........................
Persons waiting to report to
a new job at a later d a te ...............
Jobseekers not currently available
for w o rk .........................................

Persons who did some work and
also looked for w o rk .....................
Special exclusions..............................

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

See footnotes at end of table.




7

Included

Included9

None
Total
labor
calculated
force

Table 2. Synopsis of unemployment statistics: Definitions recommended by the International Labour Office
and definitions used in 9 countries—Continued
Item
S o u rc e ...................................... ......................

Germany

Great Britain

Frequency ......................................................
Age lim it s ......................................................

Employment
office registra­
tions
Monthly
14 years and over

Labor
force
survey
Annual
14 years
and over

Reference p e rio d .........................................
Reference period for jo b s e e kin g .............

1 day
1 day

1 week
Unspeci­
fied

—

Whether included in labor force:
Career military p ers o n n e l...................
Unpaid family workers working
less than 16 h o u r s ..........................
Whether included in unemployed:2
Persons on la y o f f ...................................
Persons who have not actively
sought work5 ...................................
Temporarily ill jobseekers...................
Students seeking w o r k ..........................

Persons waiting to report to
a new job at a later d a t e ................
Jobseekers not currently available
for w o r k ............................................

Persons who did some work and
also looked for w o r k ................ ... .
Special exclusions ................................

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

Employment office
registrations

Italy

Sweden

Labor
force
survey
Annual10
16 years
and over

Labor
force
survey
Quarterly
14 years
and over

1 day
1 day

1 week
Unspeci­
fied1 1

1 week
Unspeci­
fied1

Included

—

Excluded

Included

Included

—

included

—

Included

Included

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Included

Included

Included
Excluded
Included

Included
Included
Included

Included
Excluded
Excluded

Included
Included
(12)

Excluded
Included
Included

Excluded
Included
Exclud­
ed12

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Included

Included

Included

Excluded

Included

Excluded

Included

Excluded,
but no
test of
avail­
ability

Includ­
ed13

Included8
Construction
workers receiv­
ing "bad weather
money” between
November 1 and
March 31

Excluded

Included8
Students age 18
or over regis­
tered for vaca­
tion employ­
ment; severely
disabled persons

Excluded

Excluded

Excluded

Wage and salary
labor force

Total
labor
force

Wage and salary
labor force

Civilian
labor
force

Total
labor
force

Total
labor
force

Monthly
16 years and over

Labor
force
survey
Monthly
16 to 74
years
old
1 week
60 days

7

* A lth o u g h th e jo bs ee k in g p e rio d is u n s p e c ifie d , th e re is a ques­

F u ll-tim e

students seeking f u ll-tim e w o rk d u rin g th e school

tion on jobseeking activities during the 1-month period including
term are excluded.
8
the reference week.
Persons must be without work on the day of the registration
For statistics based on employment office registrations, the
count, but some may have done work earlier or later in the yveek.
term "included” applies only to the unemployed who are registered.
y Persons who stated they were seeking work but who also did
3
Automatically included if on temporary layoff of 26 weeks or some marginal work during the reference week.
less; must be actively seeking work if on lengthier layoff.
10Although the survey is conducted monthly, only annual aver­
A u to m a tica lly included if on temporary layoff of 4 weeks or
ages are published.
less; must be actively seeking work if on lengthier layoff.
1
Although the jobseeking period is unspecified, there is a ques­
tion on jobseeking activities during the reference week.
5 Except persons on temporary layoff or waiting to start a new
job who are not required to seek work in the countries where they
12Full-time students are included in the unemployed only when
are classified as unemployed.
seeking work during school vacations.
6 Included if illness is so minor that the person is currently avail­
13Except students, whose current availability is probed.
able for work.

2




8

survey and others may consider it to be a longer period. cept Sweden) persons on temporary or indefinite layoff are
France. Italy, and Great Britain do have supplementary classified as employed in labor force surveys. They are re­
questions which clearly specify a jobseeking period, but the garded as “with a job, but not at work.”7 In these countries,
responses to these questions do not affect the classification there is generally no such thing as an unpaid layoff. Persons
of a person as unemployed if he has already stated elsewhere on layoff in most European countries and Japan receive
that he is unemployed or “looking for work,”
payments from employer funds which are sometimes sub­
In Japan, the reference period for jobseeking is clear­ sidized by the government. Also, layoffs in Europe and
ly specified as the reference week. However, according to Japan most frequently take the form of working shorter
the instructions given on the survey form, which is filled hours during the week rather than not working at all.
out by the respondent rather than the enumerator, persons Such persons would also be classified as employed under
awaiting the results of previous job applications are to list U.S. concepts since they have done some work during the
themselves as unemployed. This practice, in effect, widens reference week.
the allowable jobseeking period to a time in the recent past Persons who have not actively sought work. Under ILO and
which can be longer than the reference week.
U.S. definitions, persons should be actively seeking work to
be classified as unemployed unless they are on temporary
Military personnel The ILO definitions relate to both total layoff or are waiting to start a new job. These latter two
labor force and civilian labor force, and no recommenda­ groups do not have to be taking active steps to find work to
tion is made regarding treatment of the Armed Forces. be classified as unemployed. However, the ILO makes no
Among the nine countries studied, draftees or conscripts
jobseeking activities. In the
are excluded from the labor force definition except in cases mention of testingisaaperson’sjobseeking activities, and per­
U.S. survey, there
test of
where they are temporarily absent from work because of
who have
steps to find work in
military duty. In such cases, these persons are generally in­ sons 4 weeks arenot taken active unemployed (with the the
past
not classified as
ex­
cluded in the employed category— “with a job but not ceptions noted above). Active jobseeking and a test of such
i.e.,
at work.” Treatment of career military personnel varies; are also required in the Canadian. Australian, and Swedish
they are excluded from the labor force in the United States, surveys for classification as unemployed. In Japan, inactive
Canada, Australia, and Great Britain, but included in the workseekers are by definition excluded from the unem­
other countries.
ployed, but there is no question on jobseeking activities. In
Unpaid family workers. According to ILO definitions, un­ France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy, inactive job­
paid family workers are included in the labor force if they seekers are included in the unemployed figures derived
worked for at least one-third of the normal working time from labor force surveys. However, most of these countries
during the reference period. In the United States, Australia, do have supplementary questions on workseeking activities.
and Sweden unpaid family workers are included in the The answers to these questions indicate that a certain per­
labor force if they worked 15 hours or more in the refer­ centage of persons will respond that they are unemployed
ence period. In Great Britain all unpaid family workers or seeking work although they have not actually taken any
were excluded from the household survey until 1976 when steps to find work,
wives working 15 hours or more in their husbands’ busi­
“Discouraged workers” constitute one group of in­
nesses were treated as employed whether they were paid or active jobseekers. These are persons who are not looking
not. In all the other countries, unpaid family workers are for work but would be doing so if they believed work was
classified as in the labor force with no lower limit on the available. Such persons were included in the U.S. unemploy ­
ment figures until 1967; however, there was no specific
number of hours worked.
In the United States, unpaid family workers who question on discouraged workers. The fact that a worker
worked less than 15 hours and looked for other jobs would was discouraged had to be volunteered by the respondent.
be classified as unemployed. In the countries without the This left a large area of uncertainty and imprecision in the
15-hour limit, such persons would not be classified as un­ definitions, as there was no assurance that discouraged
workers were being uniformly reported by all enumerators.
employed (except in France).
was decided exclude discouraged workers
Persons on layoff. ILO definitions include persons on In 1967, itunemployed intothe United States unless the
from the
temporary or indefinite layoff without pay in the unem­ person had looked for work within the past 4 weeks. Can­
ployed count. This is also the practice in the United States,
and Australian statisticians
Canada, Australia, and Sweden. Such persons do not have adian regard to the treatment of made the same decision
with
discouraged workers in
to be actively seeking work to be classified as unemployed, 1976. In Sweden, discouraged workers have always been
except that after a specified period in Canada (26 weeks)
and Australia (4 weeks) they do have to be talcing steps to
;Persons on temporary layoff in the United States were also
find work.
treated as employed prior to changes in definition adopted in
In Japan and the Western European countries (ex­ 1957.




9

excluded from the unemployed, but information is col­
lected on the number of such persons.
The ILO definitions make no mention of discour­
aged workers. Since jobseeking activity is mentioned as a
requirement for classification as unemployed, the intent
of the ILO standards appears to be to exclude discouraged
workers from the unemployed.
In the countries which make no mention of discour­
aged workers in their survey definitions or questionnaires,
the labor force classification of such persons depends upon
the wording of the survey questions and the way that re­
spondents interpret them. When the specified reference
period for jobseeking is longer than 1 week, recently dis­
couraged workers would be included in the unemployed.
For example, a Swedish worker who actively sought work
2 months ago but soon became discouraged and stopped
seeking work would currently be classified as unemployed.
However, next month, if he continues to be discouraged,
he would move into the economically inactive category.
Temporarily ill jobseekers. ILO definitions specify that un­
employed persons should be available for work, except for
minor illness. Those countries, such as the United States,
which have a current availability requirement make an ex­
ception for persons who are temporarily ill. Thus, such per­
sons are counted in the unemployed. In the labor force sur­
veys of countries without a current availability require­
ment, temporarily ill jobseekers are also generally counted
as unemployed. In Japan, however, temporarily ill job­
seekers are instructed to list themselves as unemployed only
if their illness is so minor that they are currently available
to begin work. Thus, the Japanese practice is more restric­
tive than the other countries.
Prior to the revisions in the U.S. definitions adopted in
1967, persons who would have been looking for work ex­
cept for temporary illness were classified as unemployed if
this information was volunteered. There was no specific
question on tills point. In the new definitions adopted in
1967, there was no need to address this point because the
allowable period for jobseeking activities was extended to
4 weeks. Thus, persons too ill to seek work during the ref­
erence week were classified as unemployed if they sought
work during the 4-week period including the reference
week. In countries where the reference period for job­
seeking is ambiguous and is taken by some respondents
to include only the reference week, temporarily ill persons
who would have been seeking work except for their ill­
ness may be excluded from the unemployed. In Great
Britain, however, such persons are included in the un­
employed because a specific question is asked: “Would
you have looked for work but for temporary illness or
injury?” Britain is the only country which asks a direct
question on this point.
Students seeking work. The ILO definitions make no men­
tion of special treatment of students. Thus, the intent of



the ILO definitions is probably to treat students as any
other member of the population, regarding them as employ­
ed if they worked and unemployed if they were seeking
work and available to begin work.
Most countries, in their labor force surveys, follow
the implied ILO definition with regard to students. Some of
them apply tests of current availability before classifying stu­
dent workseekers as unemployed. This is a point not immed­
iately apparent from a reading of some survey definitions
and questionnaires. For example, the Swedish survey ques­
tionnaire has no test of current availability, yet interviewers
are instructed to probe into the current availability of stu­
dents. In practice, full-time students are classified as unem­
ployed in Sweden only if seeking work during school vaca­
tions. In this attempt to insure current availability, the
Swedish practice may, in effect, result in an undercount of
students looking for and available for part-time work during
the school term. In the British General Household Survey,
all full-time students are classified as not in the labor force,
even if they are working or seeking work.
In Canada, full-time students seeking full-time work
are automatically excluded from the unemployed during
school term on the grounds that they are not currently
available to begin work. Those seeking part-time work are
included in the unemployed if currently available to begin
work.
The pattern of working or seeking work during the
school week, which is widespread in the United States, does
not occur frequently in the Western European countries
and Japan. Thus, the question of how to treat students with
regard to labor force status has not been rigorously investi­
gated in most other countries.
Persons waiting to report to a new job at a later date. Ac­
cording to ILO definitions, persons waiting to report to a
new job at a later date should be classified as unemployed if
not currently employed and if available to begin work im­
mediately. This is the practice followed in the United States8
and several of the other countries. The reasoning behind
this classification is that in many cases the anticipated job
does not materialize, and the waiting period actually repre­
sents the beginning of a longer period of unemployment.
In the French survey, persons waiting to start a new
job are classified as employed. The German survey does
not specify the classification of such persons; according to
German statisticians, they are most likely enumerated as
economically inactive. This was also the case in Italy until
January 1977 when the survey was revised; persons waiting
to start a new job are now classified as unemployed.
Jobseekers not currently available for work. ILO definitions
clearly specify that unemployed persons should be current­
ly available to begin work (except for minor illness). Per8
Prior to 1957, persons waiting to report to a new job were classi­
fied as employed in the U.S. survey.

10

sons not currently available for work (e.g., students seeking ployment is attributable to two chief causes: differences in
work in April but not able to accept work until the end of the system for collecting data and differences in concepts
the school term in June) should be classified as economic­ or definitions. It has been pointed out above that labor
ally inactive under ILO concepts. However, the ILO defini­ force sample surveys provide data on unemployment which
tions do not recommend a test of current availability, and are far more comparable internationally than statistics on
most countries do not ask a question in their surveys to as­ the registered unemployed. Three of the countries studied,
certain the availability of unemployed persons to begin however, rely on registration statistics for their official un­
work immediately. The United States, Canada, and Austral­ employment data. Fortunately, France, Germany, and
ia require current availability for classification as unem­ Great Britain also conduct periodic labor force surveys
ployed and incorporate a question on availability in their which have been indispensable in adjusting and interpreting
survey questionnaires. In principle, Japan and Italy require the official data.
All of the other countries studied rely on labor force
current availability, but do not have a specific question on
the point in the survey. The Japanese survey questionnaire surveys for their official unemployment rates. However,
instructions indicate that persons who enumerate themselves definitions of unemployment and labor force differ from
as “looking for work” should be currently available for country to country, even when the same type of data col­
work. In Sweden, only the current availability of students lection method is used. It has been seen that definitions
is probed.
vary with regard to treatment of persons on layoff, unpaid
Persons who did some work and also looked for work. ILO family workers, military personnel, students, and other
definitions state that unemployed persons must be “with­ groups. Furthermore, there are differences in reference peri­
out a job.” This is also the practice in the U.S. survey where ods, age limits, and criteria for seeking work.
Adjustments have been made for many, but not all,
the categories of employed and unemployed are mutually
of these differences. In some areas, data are simply not
exclusive and employment (even 1 hour) takes precedence
over unemployment for classification purposes. In the available for adjustment purposes. Where adjustments have
French labor force survey, some unemployed persons may not been made, the remaining differences are believed to be
can­
a]so have done some work during the reference week. That minor, although the exactInextent of these differences were
not be precisely known. other areas, adjustments
is, they regard their major status as that of an unemployed
because institutional
taken into
person, even though they did work a few hours at some not made For example, instead differences were data of all
account.
of adjusting the
marginal activity, The labor force surveys conducted in the countries to the U.S. lower age limit of 16, the foreign age
other countries do not appear to count persons who did
age at which
some work as unemployed. Their work activity takes pre­ limits have been adapted to conforminto the country. This
compulsory schooling normally ends each
cedence over their workseeking, and they are classified as was done because youths in most other countries complete
employed, as in the U.S, survey.
their education and enter the labor force on a full-time
Base for the unemployment rate. The ILO definitions do basis at an earlier age than in the United States, Thus, Ger­
not recommend whether the unemployment rate should be man data are adjusted to cover 15-year-olds and over; the
calculated on the basis of the total labor force or the civil­ regularly published German data relate to 14-year-olds and
ian labor force. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and over, but compulsory schooling ends at 15.
Great Britain, unemployment rates from the labor force sur­
The methods of adjusting foreign country data to
vey are calculated on a civilian labor force basis. In the labor U.S. concepts are described in detail in appendix B. The
force surveys conducted in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, following descriptions present a highly condensed account
and Sweden, the labor force includes career military person­ of the adjustments made in the various national statistics.
nel. For Germany and Great Britain, where registration sta­
tistics are the basis for the “official” unemployment rate, Canada and Australia. Canada and Australia both have labor
the wage and salary labor force, which excludes self- force surveys which are closely comparable to the U.S. sur­
employed and unpaid family workers, is used as the basis vey. Although there are some small conceptual differences,
for the calculation of the unemployment rate. Career they are not regarded as significant enough to require ad­
military personnel are considered as part of the wage and justment.
salary labor force. France does not officially publish an un­
employment rate; the official monthly unemployment Japan. The Japanese labor force survey was patterned after
figure relates to the number of persons registered as un- the U.S. survey, but makes use of a number of different
employ cd.
definitions designed to serve Japanese needs, in excluding
workers on layoff from the unemployed, the Japanese are
Adjustment to U.S. concepts
somewhat more restrictive than the United States, but the
number of workers laid off for a full week is believed to be
The noneomparability of national figures on unem­ very small and no adjustment has been made. The “lifetime




11

employment system1 is a basic pattern of labor-manage­
”
ment relations in Japan. The regular worker is granted per­
manent tenure, and when the activity of the establishment
is reduced, the employer retains the worker, either trans­
ferring him to another job or reducing hours. Workers
placed on shorter hours for economic reasons are compen­
sated for the hours not worked under a system partially fi­
nanced by the government. In having no test of workseek­
ing activities or current availability, the Japanese survey is
less restrictive than the U.S. survey. However, the instruc­
tions given on the survey questionnaire—
which is filled in
by the respondent rather than an enumerator—clearly state
that unemployed persons must be actively seeking work.
Adjustments are made to the Japanese labor force to
exclude career military personnel and unpaid family work­
ers who worked less than 15 hours per week. These adjust­
ments are so small that the published and adjusted unem­
ployment rates are identical in most years.
France. The “official” monthly unemployment figures for
France are based on the number of registrations at employ­
ment offices. Persons seeking part-time work are excluded
as are other jobseekers who fail to register. On the other
hand, persons who did some work during the week of the
count, but were out of work on the day of the count and reg­
istered, are included. No unemployment rate is published.
In addition, since 1974 the French authorities have made
annual estimates of the unemployed under ILO defini­
tions. These annual estimates are. based upon the results
of labor force surveys conducted in March of each year.
Prior to 1974, the annual estimates were based on French
census definitions, which are more restrictive than the ILO
definitions.
For adjustment to U.S. concepts, BLS utilizes the
results of the annual French labor force surveys. The BLS
method of adjusting survey unemployment is quite similar
to the method used by French authorities in adapting the
labor force survey to ILO definitions. The French labor
force survey provides detailed information on the number
and characteristics of those unemployed; by subtracting
those persons excluded under the U.S. definition (e.g.,
persons who classify themselves as unemployed but who
did some work in the reference week; persons not currently
available for work) and adding those who should be includ­
ed (e.g., persons on layoff; persons waiting to start a new
job), BLS obtains estimates of unemployment in close con­
formity with U.S. concepts. Some adjustments are made
to the reported labor force figures, such as exclusion of
career military personnel and unpaid family workers who
were not at work or worked less than 15 hours.
Coefficients of adjustment are obtained from the
March surveys, and interpolations are made between sur­
veys to obtain annual average adjustment factors which are
applied to the registered unemployed figures and the French
annual estimates of the labor force. The figures on unem­




12

ployment adjusted to U.S. concepts are considerably higher
than the figures from the registered unemployed series but
quite close to the annual estimates under ILO definitions.
Germany. The principal and official unemployment sta­
tistics for Germany are administrative statistics represent­
ing the monthly count of unemployed registered at the em­
ployment offices. The unemployment rate is calculated on
the basis of the wage and salary labor force. The registra­
tion series has certain limitations as a precise measure of un­
employment. Some unemployed persons may choose not
to register if they are ineligible to collect jobless benefits.
Also, unemployed persons who do not want to work at
least 20 hours a week are excluded. On the other hand,
some persons who are working a few hours or a few days a
week may be registered as unemployed. The registration
figures cover all persons who at some time in the past have
registered as unemployed and whose job application has
not yet been settled at the time of the count. Consequently,
there may be persons on the register who have found a job
but have failed to report it to the employment service.
Germany also conducts a labor force survey, the
Microcensus, every April or May. The Microcensus also has
its limitations as a measure of unemployment, but pro­
vides a better basis for estimating unemployment under
U.S. concepts than the registration series. The Microcensus
was designed to produce labor force and related statistics
consistent with ILO definitions.
In the Micro census the unemployed exclude per­
sons on layoff who are waiting to return to their job and
persons waiting to begin a new job, categories which should
be included under U.S. concepts. Also, the reference period
for jobseeking is ambiguous, and may be interpreted by
some persons to be strictly the survey week. On the other
hand, some inactive workseekers and persons who are not
currently available to begin work may be included in the
Microcensus figures. The Microcensus does not provide data
on any of these groups of persons, but these upward and
downward biases may tend to cancel each other out. The
Microcensus figures have usually been lower than the fig­
ures from the registered unemployed series.
The Microcensus unemployment figures, which
usually relate to a week in April, are compared with the reg­
istered unemployed figures for the month nearest the sur­
vey date. This comparison yields an adjustment factor
which is then interpolated between surveys to obtain annu­
al average factors to apply to the registered unemployed
series.
Germany makes annual estimates of the labor force
which are obtained by adding employment from the Microcensus (adjusted to an annual average) and the registered
unemployed. BLS modifies this annual estimate by exclud­
ing from the employed military personnel and unpaid fam­
ily workers who worked less than 15 hours. Also, the esti­
mated annual Microcensus unemployed rather than the
registered unemployed are added to the employed to obtain

the civilian labor force under U.S. concepts. The unemploy­
ment rate derived from the adjusted data is usually lower
than the official German rate based on the registered series.
Great Britain. The official unemployment statistics for
Great Britain are obtained from a count of registrations at
employment offices (now called “Jobcenters”) and the
separate “career offices” for young people. The unemploy­
ment rate is calculated on the basis of the wage and salary
labor force. The completeness of coverage of these statis­
tics depends upon the extent to which persons looking for
work register as such. Figures from the 1961 population
census, the 1966 “sample census,” and General Household
Surveys (available beginning in 1971) indicate that the
registration figures significantly understate unemployment
under U.S. concepts.
The General Household Survey (GHS) indicates that
the number of adult males registered is slightly in excess of
the number to be obtained under U.S. definitions, but the
number of women is very much lower and the number of
youths, male and female, is moderately lower. The registra­
tion figures have been adjusted to take the GHS findings
into account, but first the GHS figures themselves required
some revision. No adjustment could be made to exclude
persons not currently available for work. Adjustments
were made to exclude persons who reported themselves as
looking for work but who were taking no active steps to
find a job. Also, the number of persons on temporary lay­
off the entire week was estimated and added to the un­
employed. Persons on temporary layoff are regarded as
employed in the GHS. Further, estimates of students
seeking work were added. All these adjustments had the
effect of raising the number of unemployed from the
official 1,305,000 to 1,610,000 in 1976. The adjusted
figures for 1975 and 1976 were estimated on the basis of
factors derived from the 1972 GHS results. Although GHS
data have been published through 1974, the 1972 factors
have been used for adjustment purposes in recent years be­
cause 1972 was a year of relatively high unem ploym ent
compared with 1973-74, and unemployment has been
high in recent years. For the years prior to the first GHS,
comparative estimates have been made by adjusting the
1961 and 1966 census data to U.S. concepts and inter­
polating between the years until 1971.
In order to convert the adjusted figures to an unem­
ployment rate, it was necessary to develop a revised esti­
mate of the civilian labor force. The chief adjustments to
the official labor force figure consist of adding the unregis­
tered unemployed and subtracting an estimated number of
duplications in the count of the employed. (The number
employed is derived from an establishment census and.
hence, includes multiple jobholders more than once.) The
British unemployment rate adjusted to U.S. concepts is sig­
nificantly higher than the reported rate—6.4 percent versus
5.6 percent in 1976.




13

Data for the United Kingdom (Great Britain and
Northern Ireland) could not be prepared because the Gen­
eral Household Survey relates only to Great Britain. Un­
employment rates, based on registration statistics, are usual­
ly higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. For ex­
ample, in 1975, Great Britain had a published unemploy­
ment rate of 4.1 percent, while Northern Ireland’s rate was
8.1 percent. Since the labor force in Northern Ireland is
small, the rate for the United Kingdom (4.2 percent) was
only slightly higher than the rate for Great Britain.
Italy. In 1963, a quarterly labor force survey replaced the
registration statistics as the official source of unemployment
data in Italy. The results of the quarterly survey form the
basis of the adjustment of Italian data to U.S. concepts.
A major revision in survey methods was made in Jan­
uary 1977. A more probing style of questioning was intro­
duced, resulting in significant increases in the number of
persons enumerated as unemployed. The revised Italian sur­
vey represents an important step toward providing the data
necessary for making adjustments to U.S. concepts. For ex­
ample, the new survey asks a specific question on jobseek­
ing activities, whereas the old survey simply inquired about
a person’s “status” during the reference week. In the old
survey, many persons who were seeking work did not re­
spond that their status was “unemployed.” Furthermore,
a question is now asked on when the last active step to find
work was taken. Persons who have not taken any active
steps to find work in the past 4 weeks should be excluded
from the unemployed under U.S. concepts.
From January 1977 onward, the only adjustment
made to the reported number of unemployed is the ex­
clusion of those who have not taken any active steps to
find work in the past 30 days. Survey results for 1977
indicate that over half of the persons enumerated as un­
employed responded that their last attempt to find work
was made more than 30 days ago. BLS is not certain that
all such persons should be excluded. The large number of
persons in this category indicates a massive number of “dis­
couraged workers” in Italy or an interpretation by many
registered unemployed persons that their presence on the
unemployment register does not constitute an active step
to find work in the past 30 days, This adjustment, there­
fore, may be modified downward when more detailed
results, including cross-classifications from 1977 surveys,
become available.
There are some remaining conceptual differences re­
garding unemployment for which no adjustments have been
made, For instance, persons on layoff who are waiting to
return to their jobs are counted as employed in Italy. How­
ever, legal restraints and the existence of file Wage Supple­
ment Fund pjomote the use of reduced hours rather than
outright layoffs when phut activity declines. Therefore, the
number of persons on layoff for an entire week is probably
nuy small. Also, survey definitions state that unemployed

persons should be currently available to begin work, but
there is no test of current availability in the survey ques­
tionnaire.
The Italian Central Bureau of Statistics (1STAT) does
not plan to make a reconciliation between the old and new
surveys until some time in 1978. BLS has decided to await
the 1STAT reconciliation rather than make any preliminary
adjustments for the 1959-76 period. Thus, the reported un­
employment figures have been used with only a small adjust­
ment to the data for 1959-63 to exclude persons enumerated
as unemployed who also did some work in the reference
week. The differences between the old and new unemploy­
ment series tend to cancel each other. The old series ex­
cluded jobseekers who did not respond that their status was
unemployed; also excluded were persons waiting to begin
a new job. Such persons are now included in the unemployed.
On the other hand, the old series included as unemployed
those persons who took no active steps to find work in the
past 30 days. The results from the 1977 surveys indicate
that the old series may have overstated unemployment
somewhat because the number of persons who did not re­
cently take active steps to find work is greater than the
number of workseekers who did not initially say they were
unemployed. However, there are no data on the number of
persons in these categories prior to 1977.
Several adjustments were made to the Italian labor
force figures. Career military personnel and unpaid family
workers who worked less than 16 hours in the survey week
were subtracted. The Italian data do not provide a break at
the less-than-15-hour level. The 1977 surveys indicate that
employment was previously undercounted by about 5 per­
cent. Adjustment factors were derived by sex and by econ­
omic sector and applied to Italian employment data for the
1959-76 period.
The adjusted unemployment rates for 1959 through
1963 are about two-tenths of a percentage point lower
than the reported rates. For 1964-76 the adjusted
rates are one-tenth of a percentage point lower than
the published rates. Beginning in January 1977, unemploy­
ment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts are much lower than
the reported rates because of the adjustment to exclude a
large number of inactive jobseekers.
Sweden. In July 1974, the monthly labor force sample sur­
vey was established as the official source for Swedish unem­
ployment figures. At that time the data on employment
office registrations were supplanted by new statistics show­
ing the total volume of employment applications passing
through the employment offices each month. Data are still
published on the number of insured unemployed who are
registered to collect benefits.
The labor force survey results are quite close in con­
cept to the U.S. figures, and only minor adjustments have
been made. No adjustment has been made for full-time stu­




14

dents who were seeking work during the school term. Data
on persons not in the labor force who would have liked to
have a job indicate that the number of student workseekers
is very small. Also, no adjustment was made to exclude per­
sons who were not currently available for work. Adjust­
ments were made to the labor force figures to include per­
sons age 75 and over and to exclude career military person­
nel. These small modifications rarely affect the unemploy­
ment rate.
Limitations

The adjustments of national data briefly described
above yield unemployment estimates that are reasonably
comparable from one country to another and that indicate
the level of joblessness according to U.S. definitions. The
accuracy of the adjustments depends upon the availability
of relevant information; in some instances, it is possible to
achieve only approximate statistical comparability among
countries. Nevertheless the adjusted figures provide a better
basis for international comparisons than the figures regularly
published by each country.
There are certain differences for which it was not
possible to make adjustments. For several countries no ad­
justment could be made for the differences in the amount
of time allowed for jobseeking activities. No information is
available on this point in the other countries, but the effect
is believed to be minor. Prior to U.S. changes in definitions
adopted in 1967, the U.S. time period was vague and was
probably interpreted by some jobseekers, primarily women,
to refer only to the survey week. Special studies indicated
that the effect of the changes in definitions in 1967 result­
ed in only a small increase in the number of women enum­
erated as unemployed.9 In addition, for some countries ad­
justments could not be made for the lack of a test of cur­
rent availability for work, the lack of an active jobseeking
requirement, and for differences in treatment of persons
on layoff and persons waiting to start a new job.
The data for more recent years for several countries
are much better than the data in earlier years in terms of
statistical comparability. The 1976 revisions made by Can­
adian and Australian statisticians have brought these surveys
into closer conformity with U.S. definitions and methods.
The inception of the British General Household Survey in
1971 was a major step in making available British data closely
g
See Robert L. Stein, “New Definitions for Employment and Un­
employment,” Employment and Earnings, February 1967, pp. 9-13.
On balance, the new definitions yielded a level of unemployment
100,000 lower than the official 1966 annual average. This was be­
cause most of the changes in definition were more restrictive—the
requirement of active jobseeking, the test of current availability,
and the change in the definition of persons absent from their jobs
who sought other work.

comparable to U.S. concepts. The earlier estimates for Bri­
tain, based on population censuses in 1961 and 1966, are
subject to a wider margin of error because the census data
were ambiguous on a number of points; for example, the
enumeration of temporarily ill persons. (See appendix
B.) The new questions in the French labor force survey
since 1975 and in the Italian survey since 1977 have allow­
ed for much more precise identification of certain groups
for adjustment purposes. Furthermore, for several coun­
tries, data from surveys were published irregularly in the
1960’s, and for some years, no data were available. In­
terpolations had to be made to fill in the missing data.




15

For several countries, a problem remains in making
adjustments because the data needed for such adjustments
are not current. For both France and Germany, issuance
of data from surveys lags by a year or more from the ref­
erence period. Thus current estimates often must be re­
vised when results of more recent surveys are obtained.
For Great Britain, the latest available General Household
Survey is for 1974. Labor market conditions have deteri­
orated considerably since that time, and the estimates
based on adjustment factors for years when unemploy­
ment levels were quite different are subject to an un­
known margin of error.

Chapter 2. Unemployment and Employment, 1959-77

Although unemployment in the United States has gen­
erally been high in comparison with other countries, Cana­
da; had the highest unemployment rates, on the average, for
the 1959-76 period. These two countries have also experi­
enced the most rapid growth in employment. In contrast,
the Western European countries, with much lower average
levels of unemployment than the United States and Canada,
had very slow growth or declines in employment.
Table 3 presents data for nine countries on the civil­
ian labor force, employment, and unemployment adjusted
to U.S. concepts for the period 1959 to 1976. The follow­
ing section describes the comparative levels and trends in
unemployment and employment. Separate discussions of
important labor market developments in each country are
then taken up.
Chart 2.

Unemployment

Despite the disrupting influence of worldwide cyclical
movements and the particular economic ills that have
plagued individual countries, the relative positions of the
nine countries with regard to unemployment rates have
shown little change over the years. From 1959 to 1976, un­
employment rates in Canada and the United States were
usually much higher than in the seven other countries
studied (chart 2). In 10 of the 18 years, Canada had the
highest unemployment rate in the industrialized world. In
1963 through 1965, and 1974 through 1976, the United
States had the highest rate; in 1966-67 the United States
was tied with another country for the highest rate.

Unemployment Rates, 1959-76

Percent

u

1959 1960




1962

id

1964

1966

1968

16

1970

1972

1974

1976

Tabie 3, Labor force, employment, and unemployment, 1959-76
United
States1

Year

Canada

Australia1

Japan

France

Germany

Great
Britain

Italy

Sweden

(2 )
3,598
3,682
3,753
3,711
3,739
3,794
3,771
3,822
3,836
3,909
3,955
3,963
3,971
4,037
4,123
4,149

Civilian labor force (thousands)
Adjusted to U.S. concepts
1959 . . . . . . . .
1960 . . . . . . . .
1 9 6 1 ......................
1962 ......................
1963 . . . .............
1964 . . . . . . . .
1965 ......................
1966 ......................
1967 . . . . . . . .
1968 . . . . . . . .
1969 . . . .............
1970 .......................
1971 . ...................
1972 ................ . .
1973 ......................
1974 .......................
1975 ................... ...
1976 ......................

68,369
69,628
70,459
70,614
71,833
73,091
74,455
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734
82,715
84,113
86,542
88,714
91,011
92,613
94,773

6,214
6,382
6,491
6,584
6,715
6,898
7,105
7,495
7,748
7,952
8,195
8,399
8,644
8,920
9,322
9,706
10,060
10,308

0
< >
2

0
o

(2 >
4,559
4,689
4,833
4,958
5,070
5,213
5,381
5,486
5,589
5,723
5,869
5,991
6,075

43,320
44,120
44,610
45,040
45,430
46,040
46,780
47,850
48,810
49,680
50,140
50,730
51,120
51,320
52,590
52,440
52,530
53,100

19,060
19,080
19,050
19,160
19,340
19,680
19,750
20,000
20,100
20,380
20,660
20,980
21,210
21,430
21,640
21,980
22,040
22,190

O

25,850
25,990
26,160
26,210
26,290
26,270
26,380
26,290
25,730
25,780
26,030
26,290
26,380
26,280
26,360
26,080
25,680
25,400

23,230
23,470
23,720
24,070
24,290
24,420
24,560
24,650
24,600
24,460
24,400
24,270
24,020
24,240
24,530
24,510
*24 ,8 2 0
25,100

21,730
21,520
21,450
21,290
20,830
20,760
20,430
20,090
20,220
20,130
19,920
19,950
19,870
19,610
19,750
20,060
20,270
20,490

26,337
26,518
26,772
26,844
26,930
26,922
27,019
26,962
26,409
26,291
26,535
26,817
26,910
26,901
26,985
26,797
26,397
26,136

23,229
23,523
23,799
24,063
24,219
24,408
24,577
24,663
24,540
24,462
24,464
24,388
24,154
24,405
24,676
24,754
24,940
25,135

21,286
20,972
20,882
20,629
20,137
20,026
19,717
19,396
19,525
19,484
19,266
19,302
19,254
19,028
19,169
19,458
19,650
19,858

3,592
3,676
3,749
3,710
3,738
3,792
3,774
3,822
3,840
3,913
3,961
3,969
3,977
4,043
4,129
4,155

22,560
22,950
23,250
23,390
23,460
23,810
24,030
24,090
23,770
23,660
23,660
23,520
23,090
23,230
23,750
23,820
*2 3 ,6 5 0
23,490

20,650
20,710
20,760
20,700
20,340
20,210
19,720
19,330
19,540
19,450
19,260
19,340
19,260
18,920
19,080
19,500
19,620
19,760

(2 )
3,546
3,628
3,690
3,654
3,695
3,735
3,692
3,737
3,764
3,850
3,854
3,856
3,873
3,957
4,056
4,083

As published4
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1 9 /0
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976

. . . .............
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
................... ...
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
......................
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
................
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .............
......................
......................
......................
. . . . . . . .

68,369
69,628
70,459
70,614
71,833
73,091
74,455
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734
82,715
84,113
86,542
88,714
91,011
92,613
94,773

6,242
6,411
6,521
6,615
6,748
6,933
7,141
7,495
7,748
7,952
8,195
8,399
8,644
8,920
9,322
9,706
10,060
10,308

6
0
<*>

{l ]
(2 )

4,559
4,689
4,833
4,958
5,070
5,213
5,381
5,486
5,589
5,723
5,869
5,991
6,075

44,330
45,110
45,620
46,140
46,520
47,100
47,870
48,910
49,830
50,610
50,980
51,530
51,860
51,990
53,260
53,100
53,230
53,780

18,925
18,951
18,919
19,050
19,398
19,638
19,813
19,964
20,118
20,176
20,434
20,750
20,958
21,155
21,388
21,715
21,733
21,863

0

i2)

Employment (thousands!
Adjusted to U.S. concepts
1959 ......................
1960 ................ . .
1 9 6 1 ................... ...
1962 ......................
1963 ......................
1964 ......................
1965 ......................
1966 ................... ...
1967 ......................
1968 . ...................
1969 . . . . . . . .
1970 . . . . . . . .
1 9 7 1 ................
1972 ...............
1973 . . . . . . . .
1974 ......................
1975 ................
1976 ......................

64,630
65,778
65,746
66,702
67,762
69,305
71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
78,627
79,120
81,702
84,409
85,936
84,783
87,485

5,843
5,937
6,026
6,194
6,343
6,574
6,826
7,242
7,451
7,593
7,832
7,919
8,107
8,383
8,802.
9,185
9,363
9,572

0

0
<:>
0

(2 !
4,496
4,628
4,761
4,879
4,992
5,133
5,306
5,398
5,464
5,615
5,736
5,725
5,807

42,340
43,370
43,950
44,450
44,840
45,500
46,210
47,200
48,180
49,080
49,570
50,140
50,480
50,590
51,910
51,710
51,530
52,020

See footnotes at end of table.




17

18,680
18,730
18,750
18,880
19,080
19,390
19,440
19,620
19,700
19,850
20,170
20,440
20,620
20,820
21,060
21,330
21,100
21,170

25,340
25,710
26,000
26,060
26,170
26,170
26,310
26,210
25,390
25,410
25,790
26,090
26,170
26,060
26,140
25,630
24,740
24,480

i\)

Table 3. Labor force, employment, and unemployment, 1959-76—Continued

Year

United
States1

Canada

Australia1

Japan

France

Germany

Great
Britain

Italy

Sweden

22,785
23,177
23,487
23,631
23,698
24,036
24,260
24,332
24,021
23,916
23,924
23,811
23,402
23,570
24,088
24,169
24,044
23,830

20,169
20,136
20,172
20,018
19,663
19,477
19,003
18,637
18,846
18,800
18,611
18,693
18,645
18,331
18,500
18,898
18,996
19,127

3,540
3,622
3,686
3,653
3,694
3,733
3,695
3,737
3,768
3,854
3,860
3,862
3,879
3,963
4,062
4,089

Employment (thousands)--Continued
As published
1959 ...................... |
1960 . . . . . . . .I
1 9 6 1 ...................... j
1962 .......................
1963 ......................
1964 .......................
1965 ............................. j
1966 .......................
1967 ......................
1968 ......................
1969 ........................
1970 ............. . . .!
1 9 7 1 ......................
1972 ......................
1973 .......................
1974 ......................
1975 . . . .............
1976 ......................

64,630
65,778
65,746
66,702
67,762
69,305
71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
78,627
79,120
81,702
84,409
85,936
84,783
87,485

5,870
5,965
6,055
6,225
6,375
6,609
6,862
7,242
7,451
7,593
7^32
7,919
8,106
8363
8302
9,185
9,363
9,572

<*>
0
<*>
(2 )
4,496
4,628
4,761
4,879
4,992
5,133
5,306
5398
5.464
5,615
5,736
5,725
5307

43,350
44,360
44,980
45,560
45,950
46,550
47,300
48,270
49,200
50,020
50,400
50.940
51,210
51,260
52,590
52370
52,230
52,700

4

18,671
18,712
18,716
18,820
19,126
19,422
19,544
19,684
19,753
19,749
20,093
20,394
20,521
20,663
20,938
21,100
20,844
20,870

25,797
26,247
26,591
26,690
26,744
26,753
26,887
26,801
25,950
25,968
26,356
26,668
26,725
26,655
26,712
26,215
25,322
25,076

(2 )

Unemployment (thousands)
Adjusted to U.S. concepts
1959 .......................
1960 ................. .. .
1 9 6 1 ......................
1962 ......................
1963 .......................
1964 ......................
1965 ......................
1966 ......................
1967 ............. ....
1968 ................ .... .
1969 .......................
1970 .......................
1 9 7 1 .......................
1972 . . . . . . . .
1973 ......................
1974 . ...................
1975 ......................
1976 ......................

3,740
3,852
4,714
3,911
4,070
3,786
3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832
4,088
4,993
4,840
4,304
5,076
7,830
7,288

371
445
465
390
372
324
279
252
297
359
364
480
538
557
520
521
697
736

(>
<*>
(t )
(2 )

63
61
72
79
78
80
75
87
125
108
133
266
268

980
750
660
590
590
540
570
650
630
590
570
590
640
730
680
730
1,000
1,080

380
350
300
280
260
290
310
380
400
530
490
540
590
610
580
650
930
1,020

510
280
160
150
120
100
70
70
340
370
240
200
220
220
220
450
940
920

670
520
470
680
830
610
530
560
830
800
740
750
930
1,010
780
, 690
,1 ,1 7 0
3 1,610

1,080
810
690
590
490
550
710
760
680
680
660
610
610
700
670
560
650
730

540
271
181
154
186
169
147
161
459
323
179
149
185
246
273
582
1,074
1,060

444
346
312
432
521
372
317
331
519
546
540
577
752
835
588
585
936
1,305

1,117
836
710
611
504
549
714
759
679
684
655
609
609
697
668
560
654
732

o
(2 )

52
54
63
57
44
59
79
85
72
59
101
107
98
80
67
66

As published5
1959 ..............................j
I9 6 0 ......................
1 9 6 1 ......................
1962 ......................
1963 ......................
1964 ................ .... .
1965 .......................
1966 . ...................
1967 . ...................
1968 .......................
1969 .......................
1970 . . . . . . . .
1971 . . . . . . . .
1972 ......................
1973 .......................
1974 ......................
1975 .......................1
1976 ...................... 1

3,740
3,852
4,714
3,911
4,070
3,786
3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832
4,088
4,993
4,840
4,304
5,076
7.830
7,288

372
446
466
390
374
324
280
252
297
359
364
480
538
557
520
521
697
736

{2 ]

ft

(l)

< >
’
(2 )

63
61
72
79
78
80
75
87
125
108
133
266
268

254
239
203
230
273
216
269
280
365
427
340
356
446
492
450
615
889
993

980
750
660
590
590
540
570
650
630
590
570
590
640
730
680
730
1,000
1,080

See footnotes at end of table.




18

il)
(2 )

52
54
63
57
44
59
79
85
72
59
101
107
98
80
67
66

Table 3. Labor force, employment, and unemployment, 1959-76—Continued

Year

United
States1

Canada

Australia1

Japan

Germany

France

Great
Britain

Italy
!_____
l

Sweden

Unemployment rate (percent)
Adjusted to U.S. concepts
1959 ......................
1960 . . . .............
1961 . . ................
1962 . . . . . . . .
1963 . . ................
1964 ...............
1965 ................... ..
1966 ................ ... .
1967 ......................
1968 ......................
1969 ......................
1970 ......................
1 9 7 1 ......................
1972 . ...................
1973 ......................
1974 . . . . . . . .
1975 ......................
1976 . ....................

5.5
5.5
6.7
5. 5
5.7
5.2
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9
5.9
5.6
4,9
5. 6
8.5
7.7

6.0
7.0
7.1
5. 9
5.5
4.7
3.9
3.4
3.8
4.5
4.4
5.7
6.2
6.2
5.6
5. 4
6.9
7.1

613
2'1
6 1.6
63.0
6 2 '4 *
6 2.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.6
2.2
1.9
2.3
4.4
4.4

2.3
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.9
2.0

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.9
2.0
2.6
2.4
2.6
2,8
2.8
2.7
3, 0
4.2
4.6
As published

1959 . . ................
1960 ................... ...
1 9 6 1 ......................
1962 ................... ..
1963 ......................
1964 . . . . . . . .
1965 . . . . . . . .
1966 . . . . . . . .
1967 . . . . . . . .
1968 . . . . . . . .
1969 ......................
1970 ......................
1971 . . . . . . . .
1972 ......................
1973 ......................
1974 ................... ...
1975 ......................
1976 ................... ...

5.5
5.5
6.7
5.5
5.7
5. 2
4, 5
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4,9
5. 9
5.6
4.9
5.6
8.5
7.7

6.0
7.0
7.2
5.9
5.5
4. 7
3. 9
3,4
3.8
4.5
4.4
5.7
6, 2
6.2
5.6
5.4
6.9
7.1

*2.1
6 1*67
63.0

62A
62.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.6
2.2
1.9
2.3
4.4
4.4

2.2
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.9
2.0

1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.8
2,1
1.7
1.7
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.8
4.1
4.5

1Published and adjusted data for the United States and Australia
are identical.
2 Not available.
3
Preliminary estimates based on incomplete data.
4 Including military personnel for Japan, Germany, Italy, and
Sweden.
3
For the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Italy, and
Sweden, unemployment as recorded by sample labor force surveys,
for France, annual estimates of unemployment; and for Germany
and Great Britain, the registered unemployed.
The Australian labor force survey was initiated in 1964. Un­
employment rates for 1959-1963 are estimates by an Australian
researcher.
7
For France, unemployment as a percent of the civilian labor
force; for Japan, Italy, and Sweden, unemployment as a percent of
the civilian labor force plus career military personnel; for Germany
and Great Britain, registered unemployed (excluding adult students)
as a percent of employed wage and salary workers plus the unem­
ployed. With the exception of France, which does not publish an




19

2.0
1.1
.6
.6
.5
.4
.3
.3
1.3
1.4
.9
.8
.8
.8
.8
1.7
3.7
3.6

2.9
2.2
2,0
2.8
3.4
2.5
2.2
2.3
3.4
3,3
3.0
3.1
3.9
4.2
3.2
2. 8
34.7
38.4

5.0
3.8
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.6
3.5
3.8
3,4
3.4
3,3
3.1
3.1
3.6
3.4
2, 8
3.2
3.6

< >
’
(2 )
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.6
2.1
2.2
1,9
15
2.6
2.7
2.5
2. 0
1.6
1.6

2.6
1.3
.8
.7
.8
.8
.7
.7
2.1
1.5
.9
.7
.8
1.1
1.2
2.6
4.7
4.6

2.0
1.5
1.4
1.9
2.3
1.6
1.4
1.4
2,2
2.4
2.4
2.5
34
3.7
2,6
2.6
4,1
5,6

5.2
4,0
3.4
3.0
2.5
2. 7
3. 6
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.2
3. 2
3.7
3.5
2.9
3.3
3.7

(2 )
(2 )
1.4
1.5
1.7
1. 5
1. 2
1.6
2.1
2.2
1.9
1.5
2. 5
2.7
2.5
2,0
1.6
1.6

7

unemployment rate, these are the usually published unemployment
rates for each country. Published rates shown for Germany and
Great Britain cannot be computed from data contained in this table.
NOTE: Data for the United States relate to the population
16 years of age and over. Published data for France, Germany, and
Italy relate to the population 14 years of age and over; for Sweden,
to the population aged 16 to 74; and for Canada, Australia, Japan,
and Great Britain, to the population 15 years of age and over.
Beginning in 1973, published data for Great Britain relate to the
population 16 years of age and over. The adjusted statistics have
been adapted, insofar as possible, to the age at which compulsory
schooling ends in each country. Therefore, adjusted statistics for
France relate to the population 16 years cf age and over and for
Germany, to the population 15 years of age and over. The age
limits of adjusted statistics for Canada, Japan, Great Britain, and
Italy coincide with the age limits of the published statistics. Statis­
tics for Sweden remain at the lower age limit of 16, but have been
adjusted to include persons 75 years of age and over.

The Canadian unemployment rate has averaged 5.5
percent since 1959; the IJ.S. unemployment rate, 5.4 per­
cent (table 4). Italian unemployment was between 3 and
4 percent during most years, averaging 3.3 percent for the
entire period. British joblessness also averaged 3.3 percent,
and French unemployment averaged 2.4 percent. Sweden,
Australia, Japan, and Germany all had unemployment rates
averaging around 2 percent or less. Germany had the best
labor market performance, with unemployment averaging
just over 1 percent since 1959.
During the period since 1959, unemployment rates
have been the most stable in Sweden and Japan (table 5).
The difference between the worst and the best unemploy­
ment rate was just 1.2 percentage points in Japan and 1.5
percentage points in Sweden. The widest variation occurred
in the United States, where 5 percentage points separated
the highest rate from the lowest. Unemployment rates were
also relatively volatile in Germany, Great Britain, and Cana­
da. In Germany, unemployment rates usually varied within
a narrow range, except for the sharp increases in 1967-68
and 1974-76. The German unemployment rate of 3.7 per­
cent in 1975 was over 12 times the rate prevailing in 1965-

66 .

In the 1960’s, unemployment rates in Western Eu­
rope and Japan were normally far lower than those in the
United States and Canada. The labor market in most of the
other countries was very tight, as reflected in the unemploy­
ment rate lows for the decade in Germany (0.3 percent in
1965-66) and Japan (1.1 percent in 1969). Australia, France,
and Sweden also had unemployment rates under 2 percent
for much of the decade. Achieving “full employment” re­
quired little struggle in these countries; indeed, in many
years there was a scarcity of labor. Some European coun­
tries had to import large numbers of “guest workers” from
the poorer nations of the Mediterranean region to maintain
the rapid expansion of their economies. Australia encouraged
permanent immigration. While the United States achieved
a 16-year-low unemployment rate of 3.5 percent in 1969, it
was still significantly higiier than the rate in most of the
other countries.
Conditions in the Italian labor market contrasted
with those in the other European countries. Unemployment
was significantly higher in Italy during the 1960’s, and that
country exported hundreds of thousands of workers to the
labor-short countries of the North. However, in the 1970’s,
unemployment rates in the rest of Western Europe moved
ahead of Italy’s.
In the United States and Canada, unemployment in
the second half of the 1960’s was much lower than in the
first half (table 4). U.S. unemployment averaged 5.7 percent
from 1960 to 1964 and 3.8 percent from 1965 to 1969.
Australia and Japan also had somewhat lower jobless rates
in the latter half of the decade. In contrast, most Western
European nations entered a period of recession around




20

1965, although the impact of the slowdown in growth
generally did not make itself felt on the labor market un­
til late 1966 and early 1967 when jobless rates began ris­
ing in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden.
Changes in the unemployment picture since 1974
have been striking. Recessionary trends gathered momen­
tum in the industrial countries following the Arab oil em­
bargo in late 1973. During 1975-76, postwar highs in un­
employment were reached in the United States, Australia,
France, and Great Britain; German unemployment rates
were the highest since the mid-d 950’s; and Japanese job­
lessness reached the levels of 1959. In contrast, Swedish
unemployment decreased in 1975 and held steady in
1976.
Not only have most countries registered significant in­
creases in joblessness since 1974, but the relative positions
of some countries with respect to unemployment rates have
changed. Canada and the United States continued to have
the highest unemployment rates, but the increase in the job­
less rate got underway earlier and went farther in the United
States (table 6). Consequently, the U.S. rate, which had
been below Canada’s from 1968 through 1973, exceeded
the Canadian rate in late 1974 and remained higher until
Table 4.
1959-76

Average unemployment rates, selected periods,

(Percent)
Country
United States . .
Canada . . . . . .
Australia.............
Japan ................
France ................
Germany . . . .
Great Britain . .
Italy . . . . . . .
S w e d e n .............
Ratio: highest
to lowest . . .

1959-76

1960-64

1965-69

5.4
5.5
2.1
1.4
2.4
1.2
3.3
3.3
11.9

5.7
6.0
2.1
1.4
1.5
.6
2.6
3.0
11.5

3.8
4.0
1.5
1.2
2.1
.8
2.8
3.5
1.8

5.4
5.8
1.9
1.3
2.8
1.0
3.4
3.2
2.3

8.1
7.0
4.4
2.0
4.4
3.7
5.6
3.4
1.6

4.6

10.0

5.0

5.8

5.1

1970-74 1975-76

11961 is the earlier year used.

Table 5.

Highest and lowest unemployment rates, 1959-76

(Percent)

Country

United States . .
Canada ................
Australia . . . . .
Japan ................
France ................
Germany . . . .
Great Britain . .
I t a l y ...................
Sweden1 . . . . .

Highest

8.5
7.1
4.4
2.3
4.6
3.7
6.4
5.0
2.7

Lowest

(1975)
3.5 (1969)
(1961, 1976) 3.4 (1966)
(1975, 1976) 1.3 (1965)
(1959)
1.1 (1969)
(1976)
1.3 (1963)
(1975)
.3 (1965, 1966)
(1976)
2.0 (1961)
(1959)
2.4 (1963)
(1972)
1.2 (1965)

11961 to 1976,
NOTE: Years in parentheses.

Difference
(in
percentage
points)
5.0
3.7
3.1
1.2
3.3
3.4
4.4
2.6
1.5

Table 6. Quarterly unemployment rates, 1970 77
United
States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France1

Germany1

Great
Britain1

Italy2

Sweden

1970 . . . . . . .
I ......................
II . . . .............
Ill . . . . . . .
IV . . . . . . .

4.9
4.2
4.7
5.2
5.8

5.7
4. 8
5.7
6.1
6.1

1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4

1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3

2.6
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.8

0.8
.8
.7
.7
.7

3.1
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.2

3.1
3.0
2.9
3. 2
2.8

1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5

1971
I .
.
Ill
IV

. . . . . . .
...................
. ................
. . . . . . .
...................

5.9
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0

6.2
6.2
6.3
6.1
6.2

1.6
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8

1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4

2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8

.8
.8
.9
.8
.9

3.9
3,3
3,7
4.1
4.3

3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1

2.6
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.9

1972 ................ ...
I ......................
II . ....................
Ill . . . . . . .
I V ...................

5.6
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.3

6.2
6.0
6.1
6.4
6.5

2.2
2.0
2.1
2.6
2.3

1.4
1,4
1.4
1.4
1.4

2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7

.8
.9
.9
1.0
.8

4.2
4.5
4.3
4.1
3.9

3.6
3.4
3.4
3.7
3,6

2.7
2,7
2.7
2.8
2.7

1973 ................ .
I ......................
I I ......................
. . . . . . .
IV . . . . . . .

4.9
4.9
4.9
4. 8
4.8

5.6
5.9
5.4
5.4
5.5

1.9
2,1
1.9
1.7
1.7

1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.2

2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7

.8
.7
.8
.8
1.0

3,2
3.7
3.3
3.0
2.7

3.4
3.6
4.0
3,1
2.9

2.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.4

1974 . . .............
I ................... ...
I I ................... .
Ill . . . . . . .
I V ...................

5.6
5.0
5.1
5.6
6.6

5.4
5.3
5.2
5.3
5.6

2.3
1.7
1.8
2.4
3.3

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.7

3.0
2.8
2.7
2.7
3.4

1.7
1.3
1.5
1.9
2.5

2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
3.1

2.8
2.9
2.5
2.8
3.0

2.0
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.7

1975 ....................
1 ......................
1 .......................
1
Ill ...................
I V ...................

8.5
8.1
8.8
8.6
8.4

6.9
6.7
7,0
7.1
7.1

4.4
4,0
4.5
4.6
4.6

1.9
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1

4.2
3,8
4.2
4.4
4.5

3.7
3.0
3.8
4.1
3.9

4.7
3.7
4.2
5.1
5,7

3.2
2.9
3,4
3.2
3.4

1.6
1,5
1.7
1.6
1.7

1976 ...................
I .......................
I I ......................
Ill ....................
I V ...................

7.7
7.6
7.4
7.8
7.9

7.1
6.9
7.1
7.4

4.4
4.3
4.3
4.8
4.3

2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
1.9

4.6
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.5

3,6
3.8
3,6
3.6
3.5

6.4
6.2
6.5
6.6
6,6

3.6
3,3
3.5
3.8
3.7

1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6

1977 ...................
I ......................
II .......................
Ill ...................

7.4
7.0
7.0

7.8
8.1
8.2

4.6
5.4
5.7

1.9
2.1
2.1

4.7
5.3
5.8

3.4
3.5
3,6

6.8
7.0
7.2

3.2
3.1
3.6

1.7
1.7
2.0

Period

H

m

13

Prelim inary for France and Germany for 1977, and for Great
Britain from 1975 onward.
Data for 1977 are not strictly comparable with data for earlier
years. (See appendix B.)
NOTE:

Quarterly figures for




France, Germany,

Great Britain are calculated by applying annual adjustment factors
to current published data, and therefore should be viewed as only
approximate indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts.
Published data for Australia, Canada, Japan, and Sweden require
little or no adjustment.

Italy, and

21

1977. Increases in unemployment were even more pro­
nounced in other countries; sharp increases in Australian
and German unemployment caused those countries to move
up in ranking. At the same time, since unemployment de­
clined in Sweden, that country displaced Germany as the
country with the lowest unemployment rate. Italy, which
had ranked no lower than fourth throughout 1959-74,
moved down to sixth position in 1975-76.
The increases in unemployment in the 1970’s have
been attributed to structural change as well as cyclical fac­
tors. Even before the Arab oil embargo, a number of coun­
tries had high rates of unemployment in relation to previous
experience. In all but three countries (Japan, Italy, and
Germany), unemployment rates in the early 1970’s were
significantly higher than in the latter half of the 1960’s. Ac­
cording to calculations by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), unemployment
rates at the end of 1972 in the United States, Canada,
France, and Great Britain were about 1 percentage point
above the rate prevailing at a similar stage of the previous
business cycle.1 The OECD has noted a tendency for un­
employment levels in major industrial countries to in­
crease from cyclical peak to cyclical peak since the end
of World War II.
In Canada and the United States, the faster growth of
the labor supply in the 1970’s has been an element behind
the rise of unemployment. In both countries, high birth
rates after 1945 and social factors—
higher female partici­
pation rates and the slowdown in the spread of higher edu­
cation -have led to a pronounced acceleration of labor
force growth. In most of Western Europe, birth rates, fol­
lowing the early postwar baby boom, fell back in the early
1950’s. Female labor force participation has declined or in­
creased slowly in the European countries (chapter 4),
and higher education has not yet reached as large a propor1ion of ihe population as in the United States. In Western
Europe, unlike the United States, the spread of higher eduTable 7. Employment growth rates, selected periods, 1959-76
(Percent per year)

1959-76' j 1960-652 1965-70 1970-74 1974-75 1975-76

Country
United States
Canada . . . .
Australia . . .
Japan . . . . .
France . . . . j
Germany . . . |
Great Britain.
!
I t a l y .............
Sweden. . . . 1

1.9
3.1
2.2

i
|
! 2.8
(3 )

1.5

• -1

1.2
.9
.4

-1
\ - .5

4.0

1.3
.9
.8

.9

I

.9

2.1
2.9

2.7
1.7
1.0
- .3
- .5
- .3

.7

2.5
3.9
2.0
.9
1.1
- .4
.5
.1
.6

-1.3
1.9

3.2
2.2

- .2

1.0
.3
-1.1
- .7

- .3
-1.0
-3.5
- .7
.6

2.5

1.4

.7

.7

11984-78 for Australia; 1961-76 for Sweden.
2 1961-65
Sweden.
Not available.

for

Employment
Canada had. by far, the highest rate of employment
growth during the period 1959 to 1976 (table 7). Employ­
ment rose at a rate of over 3 percent a year, and in 1976
there were about 3.7 million (64 percent) more persons em­
ployed in Canada than there were in 1959. Canada was the
only country studied which experienced continuous em­
ployment expansion throughout the period (chart 3).
Employment growth in the United States and Aus­
tralia was also strong. In the United States, annual employ­
ment increases averaged 1.9 percent, and almost 23 million
(35 percent) more persons held jobs in 1976 than in 1959.
The United States experienced only 2 years of declining
employment, a slight decrease during the 1960-61 recession,
and a more dramatic drop in the 1974-75 economic down­
turn. Japan was the only other country with employment
growth of over 1 percent a year, and 1974 and 1975 were
the only years of declining employment there.
in the Western European countries, in contrast, em­
ployment has grown slowly or actually declined since 1959.
In France and Sweden, employment grew by about 0.8 per­
cent a year; in Great Britain, the growth rate was negligible.
Germany and Italy had declining employment trends, in
Germany, there were 860,000 fewer persons employed in
1976 than there were in 1959.
In the United States, Canada, Japan, and France, em­
ployment growth accelerated in the second half of the
I960’s. In Canada, employment growth was particularly
rapid in 1965-68 (3.5 percent annually), hut it then fell off
to 2.1 percent per year from 1968 to 1970. In the United
States and Canada, the acceleration which began around
the mid-1960’s was attributed to rapid economic growth
combined with a large increase in young persons and wom­
en coming onto the labor market and finding jobs. In Ger­
many and Great Britain, employment began to decline in
the latter half of the 1960’s after rising in the first half of
1Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
Economic Outlook, December 19 73, pp. 32-33.

NOTE: Percent changes computed from the least squares trend
of the logarithms of the index numbers.




cation has brought about a decline in the labor force par­
ticipation rate of teenagers.
Supply-demand imbalances have consituted an impor­
tant source of difficulty in labor markets in the 1970 s. Il­
lustrating this is the fact that several European countries ex­
perienced simultaneous increases in the number of job va­
cancies and the number of persons unemployed, reflecting
growing supply-demand disequilibrium at the occupational,
industrial, or regional level. Existing statistics do not gen­
erally allow a comprehensive analysis of these imbalances,
but such fragmentary evidence as is available suggests that
imbalances are increasing in a number of countries.2

2Ibid.

22

Sectoral employment. Generally, with a nation’s eco­
nomic development and its progress in industrialization,
the distribution of the employed population shifts from
agricultural to industrial activities, particularly manufac­
turing, and then from these sectors to service activities.3
Tables 8a and 8b present comparative data on civilian em­
ployment by sector in nine countries for selected years of
the 1960 to 1976 period. During that time, vast long-term
sectoral reallocations of employment continued to take
place in Japan, France, and Italy, with more moderate
shifts occurring in the other countries.
Sectoral employment is significant to the discus­
sion of unemployment because certain sectors are more
prone to unemployment than others. Also, sectoral shifts
can create unemployment by displacing workers in declin­
ing sectors. Chapter 5 goes into these factors in more de­
tail.

the decade. Swedish employment growth also tapered off.
Italian employment continued to decline, but at a reduced
rate.
In the early 1970’s, the rate of employment growth
accelerated again in the United States and Canada. Canadian
employment growth continued to outpace the other coun­
tries. Employment growth was regained in Great Britain,
and Italy’s employment began to increase after many years
of decline.
The recessionary period of 1974-75 had a strong im­
pact on employment, which fell in six of the nine coun­
tries studied. The sharpest decline— percent-was re­
3.5
corded in Germany. Only Canada, Italy, and Sweden main­
tained employment growth in 1975. The rise in Italian em­
ployment continued into the recessionary period. Even
with these recent increases, 1 million fewer Italians were at
work in 1976 than in 1961, the peak year for employment
in Italy.
In 1976, employment continued to fall in Germany
and Great Britain, but rebounded in the United States,
Australia, France, and Japan. Canada’s employment growth
slowed somewhat in 1976, and the United States had the
most rapid increase.
Chart 3.

For a more detailed account of sectoral trends since 1950, see
Constance Sorrentino, “Comparing Employment Shifts in 10 In­
dustrialized Countries,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1971,
pp. 3-11.
3

Annual Percent Changes in Civilian Employment, 1960-76

Canada
United States

Germany

Sweden

Great Britain
3
2

1

0
-1
-2
Australia
4
France

Japan

3

3

2

2

1

1

0

-1
1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1960

1964

1968

Note: Data for Australia not available before 1965; for Sweden, before 1962.




23

1972

1976

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

Table 8A. Employment by economic sector, selected years, 1960-76
(Thousands)

Year

United
States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Great
Britain 1

Italy 2

Sweden

25,954
26,418
26,169
26,225
26,125
26,201
25,688
24,798
24,544

24,257
25,327
24,748
24,376
24,376
24,948
25,063
24,979
NA

19,877
18,721
18,460
18,376
18,075
18,239
18,644
18,765
18,900

3,513
3,673
3,836
3,842
3,845
3,861
3,944
4,044
4,070

3,526
2,876
2,262
2,144
2,038
1,954
1,882
1,823
1,714

1,005
846
699
674
671
681
662
646
NA

6,470
4,826
3,574
3,530
3,255
3,141
3,072
2,934
2,902

544
421
314
300
287
276
264
261
254

12,400
12,761
12,452
12,384
12,214
12,225
11,932
*11,170
*10 ,8 3 7

11,466
11,755
11,114
10,728
10,470
10,592
10,566
10,170
NA

7,267
7,650
8,150
8,030
8,047
8,251
8,300
8,225

1,420
1,553
1,456
1,424
1,396
1,401
1,434
1,449
1,416

9,872
10,105
9,796
9,711
9,550
9,541
9,410
*8 .8 9 0
*8 ,6 2 5

9,098
9,254
9,022
8,724
8,446
8,498
8,540
8,157
NA

5,344
5,427
5,864
5,910
5,826
5,894

1,206
1,064
1,054
1,046
1,066

6,100

1 ,1 2 0

6,128
6,143

1,138

10,028
10,781
11,455
11,697
11,873

11,786
12,726
12,935
12,975
13,236
13,676
13,836
14,163
NA

6,141
6,244
6,772
6,695
6,790
7,049
7,321
7,531
7,773

1,550
1,699
2,066
2,118
2,162
2,185
2,246
2,334
2,400

Germany

Total civilian employment
1960 ...................
1965 ...................
1970 ...................
1 9 7 1 ...................
1972 . . . . . . .
19733 ................
1974 . . . . . . .
1975 . . .............
1976 ...................

65,778
71,088
78,627
79,120
81,702
84,409
85,936
84,783
87,485

5,965
6,862
7,919
8,107
8,363
8,802
9,185
9,363
9,572

NA
4,614
5,326
5,422
5,490
5,615
5,736
5,726
5,808

43,370
46,200
50,140
50,470
50,580
51,900
51,710
51,530
52,020

18,712
19,544
20,393
20,511
20,663
20,938

21,10 0
20,844
20,870
Agriculture

5,572
4,477
3,566
3,503
3,585
3,554
3,588
3,476
3,417

1960 ...................
1965 ................ .
1970 . . . . . . .
1 9 7 1 ...................
1972 ...................
19733 ................
1974 ................ .
1975 ...................
1976 ...................

795
694
605
608
576
574
583
579
566

NA
448
431
423
429
401
392
385
374

12,800
10,500
8,490
7,840
7,310
6,810
6,540
6,380

4

4,189
3,468
2,907
2,791
2,673
2,559
2,452
2,355
2,266

6,210

Industry 5
1960 ...................
1965 . . . . . . .
1970 ...................
1971 . . .............
1972 ................ ...
19733 . .............
1974 . . . . . . .
1975 ...................
1976 ...................

21,995
24,311
26,066
25,117
25,709
27,086
26,988
25,022
25,976

1,906
2,233
2,359
2,383
2,446
2,602
2,710
2,629
2,733

NA
1,653
1,843
1,880
1,855
1,890
1,916
*1,834
*1,826

12,380
15,010
17,880
18,140
18,290
19,210
19,020
18,370
18,520

7,136
7,538
7,900
7,928
7,959
8,070
8,093
7,850
7,776

8 ,1 1 2

Manufacturing
1960 ................ ...
1965 . . . . . . .
1970 ...................
1971 . . .............
1972 . ................
19733 ................
1974 ...................
1975 ...................
1976 ...................

17,149
19,190
20,737
19,564
19,866
20,942
20,879
19,275
20,044

1,471
1,636
1,768
1,767
1,828
1,937
1,994
1,890
1,945

NA
1,207
1,308
1,336
1,310
1,335
1,340
*1,251
*1,255

5,240
5,405
5,570
5,733
5,782
5,892
5,938
5,789
5,735

9,430
11,450
13,750
13,420
13,810
14,420
13,250
13,430
13,440

1,120

1,100

Services6
1960 ...................
1965 ....................
1970 ...................
1 9 7 1 ...................
1972 ...................
19733 ................
1974 . . . . . . .
1975 ...................
1976 ...................

38,212
42,301
48,994
50,500
52,408
53,770
55,360
56,285
58,092

3,264
3,934
4,955
5,116
5,341
5,626
5,892
6,155
6,273

NA
2,514
3,052
3,119
3,206
3,325
3,427
*3,506
*3,608

18,190
20,690
23,770
24,510
24,980
25,880
26,140
26,770
27,290

7,387
8,538
9,586
9,791
10,031
10,309
10,555
10,639
10,828

public administration, private household services, and miscellaneous
services.
NA = Not available.
Preliminary.

includes Northern Ireland.

2 Data for Italy have not been adjusted for the undercount
of employment which was revealed by the revised Italian labor force
survey (see appendix B).
rrom 1973 onwards, Japan includes Okinawa.
4 Agriculture, forestry, hunting, and fishing.
5 Manufacturing, mining, and construction,
tra n s p o rta tio n , communication, public utilities, trade, finance,




12,022
11,894
*11,805
*11,993

*=

NOTE: Civilian employment totals may not coincide with those
in table 3 because some employment could not be distributed by
economic sector.

24

Table 8B. Percent distribution of employment by economic sector, selected years, 1960-76
United
States

Year

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

Great
Britain 1

Italy 2

Sweden

Total civilian employment

100.0

Each Year .............

100.0

100.G

100.0

Agriculture
1960 ...................
1965 ...................
1970 ...................
1971 . . . . . . .
1972 ...................
19'734 ................
1974 . . . . . . .
1975 ...................
1976 . . . . . . .

'•

8.5
6.3
4.5
4. 4
4.4
4.2
4. 2
4.1
3. 9

13.3

NA
9.7

100.0

100.0

22.4
17.7
14.2
13.6
12.9

7.6
7. 5
6.9
6.5
6. 3

7. 8
7.8
7.1

29.5
22.7
16.9
15.5
14.4
13.1

6.8

12.6

12.2
11.6

6.2

6,7

5. 9

6.2

12.4
11.9

11.3
10.9

10.1

8.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

13.6
10.9

4.1
3.3

15.5
11.5

8.6
8.2

2.8
2.8
2.8

3

7.8
7.5
7. 3
7.4
7.0

NA

32.6
25.8
19.4
19.2
18.0
17.1
16.5
15.6
15.4

47.8
48.3
47,6
47.2
46,8
46.7
46.4
*4 5 .0
*44.2

47.3
46.4
44.9
44.0
43.0
42.5
42.2
40.7
NA

36.6
40.9
43.9
44.4
44.4
44.4
44.3
44.2
43.5

40.4
42.3
38.0
37.1
36.3
36.3
36.4
35,8
34.8

38.0
38.2
37.4
37.0
36.6
36.4
36.6
*3 5 .8
*35.1

37.5
36.5
36.5
35.8
34.6
34.1
34.1
32.7
NA

26.9
29.0
31.8
32.2
32.2
32.3
32.7
32.7
32.5

31.9
32.8
27.7
27.4
27.2
27.6
28.4
28.1
27.0

38.6
40.8
43.8
44.6
45.4
45.9
46.3
*47.6
*48.9

48.6
50.2
52.3
53.2
54.3
54.8
55.2
56.7
NA

30.9
33.4
36.7
36.4
37.6
38.6
39.3
40.1
41.1

44.1
46.3
53.9
55.1
56.2
56.6
56.9
57.7
59.0

2.7

2.6
2.6

8.2
7.8
7.5
7.1
6.7
6.5

6.2

Industry 5
1960 . . . . . . .
1965 . . . . . . .
1970 ...................
1 9 7 1 ...................
1972 ...................
19734 ................
1974 ...................
1975 ...................
1976 ...................

33.4
34.2
33.2
31.9
31.5
32.1
31.4
29.5
29.7

32.0
32.5
29.8
29.4
29.4
29.6
29.5
28.1
28.6

NA
35.8
34.6
34.7
33.8
33.7
33.4
*32.0
*31.4

28.5
32.5
35,7
35.9
36.2
37.0
36.8
35.6
35.6

38.1
38.6
38.7
38.6
38.5
38.5
38.4
37.7
37.3
Manufacturing

1960 ...................
1965 ...................
1970 ...................
1971 . . . . . . .
1972 ...................
19734 . . . . . .
1974 . ................
1975 ...................
1976 . . . . . . .

26.1
27.0
26.4
24.7
24.3
24.8
24.3
22.7
22.9

24.7
23.8
22.3

21.8
21.9

22.0
21.7

20.2
20.3

NA
26.2
24.6
24.6
23.9
23.8
23.4
* 21.8
* 21.6

21.7
24.8
27.4
26.6
27.3
27.8
25.6
26.1
25.8

28.0
27.7
27.3
28.0
28.0
28.1
28.1
27.8
27.5
Services6

1960 ...................
1965 ...................
1970 ...................
1 9 7 1 ...................
1972 . . . . . . .
19734 . .............
1974 ...................
1975 ...................
1976 ...................

58.1
59.5
62.3
63.8
64.1
63.7
64.4
66.4
66.4

54.7
57.3
62.6
63.1
63.9
63.9
64.1
65.7
65.5

NA
54.5
57.3
57.5
58.4
59.2
59.7
*61.2
*62.1

41.9
44.8
47,4
48.6
49.4
49.9
50.6
52.0
52.5

39.5
43.7
47.0
47.7
48.5
49.2
50,0
51.0
51.9

1 Includes Northern Ireland.
z Data for Italy have not been adjusted for the undercount of
employment which was revealed by the revised Italian labor force
survey (see appendix B).
^Agriculture, forestry, hunting, and fishing.
From 1973 onwards, Japan includes Okinawa.




^Manufacturing, mining, and construction.
^Transportation, communication, public utilities, trade, finance,
public administration, private household services, and miscellaneous
services.
NA ~ Not available.
* - Preliminary.

25

bers can be increased or decreased in conformity with de­
mand. Some workers withdraw from the labor force in bad
times, in discouragement over the prospects of obtaining
a job. Sweden has a highly developed system which pro­
vides training and employment to persons unable to find
jobs. These factors and others are considered in the follow­
ing brief country-by-country analyses of unemployment
trends. Charts 4 through 12 show the trends in workmg
age population, labor force, and employment for each of
the countries.
United States. Following post-World War II highs of 6.8
percent in 1958 and 6.7 percent in 1961 Joblessness in the
United States moved downward slowly to a 16-year low of
3.5 percent in 1969. In 1970 unemployment increased
sharply to 4.9 percent, and in 1971 it rose further to 5.9
percent. The low point since that time was 4.7 percent in
October 1973. In late 1974 and 1975, the United States

Employment in agriculture declined in all countries,
usually quite rapidly. In conjunction with the growth of
total employment in most countries, this resulted in a sig­
nificant fall in agriculture’s share of employment. Great
Britain had the lowest proportion of employment in agri­
culture, and the United States ranked second. Large dif­
ferences among countries in the proportion of employment
in agriculture have narrowed considerably since 1960. In
1960 the agricultural sector in Japan was larger, in terms
of employment, than the industrial sector. By 1965, the
industrial sector was larger. In most countries, the rate of
decline in agricultural employment accelerated in the
1960’s over the 1950’s.
Movement out of agriculture generally increases the
labor supply available for industry and services. However,
rural to urban migration in Italy and Japan actually tended
to curb the total labor supply. Many women and children
who formerly worked as unpaid farm laborers withdrew
from the labor force entirely when their families left agri­
culture. Thus, the female participation rate declined in
both countries. (See chapter 4.) In most other countries,
this effect was outweighed by the increasing number of
married women entering the labor force when their children
reached school age.
Employment in the industrial sector—
mining, manu­
facturing, and construction—rose in all countries except
Germany, Great Britain, and Sweden. However, the in­
creases in the United States, Canada, Australia, and France
did not keep pace with overall employment expansion; con­
sequently, the proportion in industry actually declined.
Japan and Italy were the only countries in which the in­
dustrial sector increased its share of total employment.
In the recessionary period of 1974-75, Italy and
Sweden were the only countries with employment increases
in the industrial sector. In Canada, overall employment
rose, but industrial employment declined.
The United States emerged as the world’s first service
economy—over 50 percent of employment in service indus­
tries—shortly after World War II. With some lag, the other
industrial nations appear to be following that pattern. Cana­
da crossed the 50-percent level in 1958, and Australia and
Great Britain joined the United States and Canada in the
1960’s. In the first half of the 1970’s, Japan and France
also became service economies. Only Germany and Italy
continue to have more workers engaged in the production
of goods than of services.

C h a rt 4 .

United States: Working-Age
Population, Labor Force, and
Employment, 1960-76

Millions

Country developments

Unemployment rates are useful indicators of labor
utilization and of economic health. These statistics become
even more meaningful when used in conjunction with other
labor market data. Hours of work, for example, are com­
monly reduced in economic downturns as an alternative to
laying off workers. Some countries, particularly France and
Germany, employ large migrant work forces whose num­




1960

26

1964

1968

1972

1976

suffered from its worst economic downturn since the de­
pression of the 1930’s. The average 1975 unemployment
rate of 8.5 percent was the highest recorded since 1941. In
1976, unemployment still averaged 7.7 percent of the civil­
ian labor force. In May 1977, the rate fell below 7 percent
for the first time in 2x years.
h
The rate of growth of the U.S. labor force has been
much higher than that for Europe and Japan. From 1960
to 1976, the labor force grew at an annual rate of 2.0 per­
cent. Since 1969 the rate of growth has been at least 2.5
percent a year except in the recession years of 1971 and
1975. Despite the severity of the recessions, the labor force
continued to expand, although at a cyclically induced slower
pace. During the 1975-76 expansionary period, the labor
force grew at a much faster rate than in other recovery
periods. The strong labor force growth in 1976 kept u n ­
employment higher than it might otherwise have been.4
The growth in the labor force in 1976 reflected mainly the
unusually large increase in labor force participation by
adult women. Unlike previous recessions, labor force par­
ticipation rates increased in 1974, remained high in 1975,
and rose to a record 61.6 percent in 1976.
U.S. labor force growth rates and participation rates
would have been higher than those recorded in the reces­
sion years of 1971 and 1975 if increasing numbers of per­
sons had not withdrawn from the labor market when faced
with bleak job prospects. The trend for these discouraged
workers—persons who would have been looking for work
except that they believed they could not find a job-has
generally paralleled the cyclical changes in the number of
jobless. The number of discouraged workers reached an alltime high of 1.2 million persons in the third quarter of
1975. As economic conditions improved, many of these
persons entered or reentered the labor force. In 1976, the
number of discouraged workers declined to 916,000. How­
ever, in the second quarter of 1977, the number of dis­
couraged workers rose to nearly 1.1 million, the highest
level since the third quarter of 1975.
Employment in the United States rose throughout
the 1960-76 period, except for 1961 and 1975. In 1961,
the decline was negligible; in 1975 employment fell by 1.3
percent. However, the 1975 decline in employment was
much less than the increase in joblessness because of the
large numbers of labor force reentrants and first-time job­
seekers. Employment growth, which resumed in the second
quarter of 1975, accelerated to 3.2 percent in 1976. By
May 1977, the number of employed persons had increased
by 6.3 million from the recession low of 84.1 million in
March 1975. More than 40 percent of the increase took
place after October 1976, an average of 380,000 new jobs
per month.
Canada. Canadian joblessness has been significantly higher

than in the other industrial nations, with the exception of
the United States. Only in 1965, 1966, and 1967 was un­
employment below 4 percent. Unemployment was below 5
percent in 1968-69, rose to over 6 percent in 1971-72, and
then fell to 5.4 percent in 1974. In the following year, un­
employment began rising rapidly and by December 1976
the jobless rate had climbed to 7.5 percent, the highest in
15 years. The unemployment rate continued upward in
early 1977, reaching 8.3 percent in April.
Regional differences in economic structure, employ­
ment, and incomes have remained an obstacle in achieving
lower unemployment in Canada. Jobless rates are highest in
the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, where the rates in 1976
were 11.0 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively. In the
most industrialized province, Ontario, the unemployment
rate was 6.2 percent. The Prairie provinces, at 5.9 percent,
recorded the lowest regional rates.
C h a rt 5.

4

Robert W. Bednarzik and Stephen St. Marie, “Employment and
Unemployment in 1976,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1977,
p. 10.




1960

27

Canada: Working-Age Population,
Labor Force, and Employment,
Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

1964

1968

1972

1976

Growth in the Canadian labor force has been very
rapid, outpacing all other nations studied in the period
1959-76. Much of the increase resulted from the entry of
young persons and women into the work force. After reach­
ing 5.5 percent in 1966, the labor force growth rate fluc­
tuated within a range of 2.6 to 3.4 percent a year. In 1973
and 1974, the pace of labor force growth accelerated to
above 4 percent a year, but in late 1974 growth began to
taper off. The labor force increased by 3.6 percent in 1975
and by 2.5 percent in 1976. Contributing to these lower
rates of growth was the new immigration law of 1974 that
tied immigration more closely to labor market needs. In
the period 1965 through 1974, the number of new immi­
grants entering the country to work was equal to one-third
of the total increase in the labor force; in 1967 and 1968,
the number was equal to nearly half of the increase. In
1975 and 1976, when the labor force grew more slowly,
new immigrants were equal to 23 percent and 20 percent,
respectively, of the increase in the work force.
Australia. Unemployment in Australia fluctuated within the
low and narrow range of 1.3 to 1.6 percent from 1964, the
first year for which labor force survey data are available, to
1971. Joblessness increased in 1972 to a 9-year high of 2.2
percent of the labor force and remained near 2 percent un­
til late 1974. Between 1974 and 1975, unemployment
doubled. The jobless rate in the third and fourth quarters
of 1975, at 4.6 percent, was a record high for the postwar
period. Employment rose in 1976, after falling marginally
in 1975, but unemployment remained close to 1975 levels
since the rise in employment was not sufficient to absorb
the growth of the labor force. Joblessness increased steadily
in 1977, reaching a new postwar high of 5.7 percent in the
third quarter. In response to the slack in the labor market,
Australia, traditionally a country encouraging immigration,
tightened its immigration laws. Since 1972, persons bom
outside the country have accounted for 27 percent of the
labor force.
Japan. Unemployment in Japan has remained lower and
more stable than in the other major industrial nations.
From 1960 through 1974, joblessness averaged 1.3 percent
and never rose above 1.7 percent. However, beginning in
1974, the trend toward labor shortage was reversed. Em­
ployment declined, and in late 1974 unemployment began
moving upward steadily, reaching a peak in the fourth quar­
ter of 1975 of 2.1 percent—the highest unemployment rate
recorded in Japan since 1959. Unemployment remained at
around the 2-percent level throughout 1976 and the first
half of 1977.
As these low rates indicate, joblessness is not highly
sensitive to the demand for labor in Japan. Employers, with
their tradition of lifetime employment policies, prefer to re­
duce working hours, terminate contracts with part-time,
seasonal, and temporary workers, reduce new hires of
school leavers, and encourage “voluntary retirement.” Dur


28

C h a rt 6.

Australia: Working-Age Population,
Labor Force, and Employment,
Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1964-76

ing the 1974-75 recession, Japanese employers also stepped
up the practice of transferring employees from one job to
another within the same company and setting up special
education and training programs to avoid layoffs of perma­
nent employees. In 1975, employment of regular workers
increased by 0.5 percent, but employment of temporary
workers and day laborers fell by over 5 percent. New hires
of school leavers were reduced sharply as more than onethird of Japan’s major businesses cancelled plans to hire
college and university graduates.
Most firms employing over 1,000 permanent workers
solicited “voluntary retirements” by offering larger than
normal lump-sum retirement allowances. These programs
were aimed specifically at younger women who tend to
resign before their marriage and older workers with about 5
years left before mandatory retirement. The firms offered
job placement guidance to those “voluntary retirees” who
wished to continue working. Those not placed in new jobs

tractual and temporary employees. Many of these workers,
mainly women, apparently preferred to withdraw from the
labor force rather than look for another job. Thus, the labor
force participation rate varies with the Japanese business
cycle, and recorded unemployment does not appear to be
a highly sensitive indication of the number of persons who
would seek work if jobs were available.

Japan: Working-Age Population,
Labor Force, and Employment,
Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

C h a rt 7.

Millions

France. In the early 1960’s, unemployment in France re­
mained below 2 percent of the civilian labor force, with a
low of 1.3 percent in 1963. In 1967, the economy slowed
down and the French jobless rate moved upward to 2.0
percent. Joblessness continued to move toward the “warn­
ing point” set forth in the government’s economic plan260,000 persons registered as unemployed—
which would
amount to an unemployment level of nearly 3 percent (ad­
justed to U.S. concepts) and in May 1968 a crisis develop­
ed. Student riots and workers’ strikes immobilized the na-

100
Ratio scale

Labor force

4Q

C h a rt 8.

Employment

I
35!

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

were eligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits
while jobseeking. Persons 55 years of age and over are eli­
gible to collect benefits for up to 300 days.
Under the Employment Insurance Law of 1975, the
Japanese government subsidized enterprises which kept
employees on the payroll rather than laying them off. This
employment adjustment grant enabled enterprises in in­
dustries designated by the Ministry of Labor as economically
impacted to pay up to 90 percent of the worker’s basic
wage for 6 months with a 3-month additional extension. In
small and medium-size firms, the government subsidy
amounted to two-thirds of the worker’s wage; in large-size
firms, one-half of wage costs were covered. Approximately
one-third of all Japanese workers were eligible for such
compensation during 1975.
The Japanese labor force declined in 1974 for the
first time in the postwar era. This decline was attributed to
recession-induced labor force withdrawals of laid-off con­



29

France: Working-Age Population,
Labor Force, and Employment,
Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

tion. After the spring strikes, economic activity picked up
as industry filled back orders and attempted to meet the
increased consumer demand created by the sharp wage in­
creases of the strike settlement. Unemployment declined
in 1969, but then rose to around 2.8 percent in late 1970.
It remained at this level until the end of 1974, when job­
lessness rose sharply in response to strikes in public enter­
prises and agencies and progressively tightening anti-in­
flation policies. In 1975, unemployment rose by almost 40
percent. This was equal to the rise in 1968, but the 1975
increase came on top of an unemployment level that al­
ready exceeded the 1968 rate. Joblessness continued to
expand in 1976 and 1977. A postwar high of 5.8 percent
was recorded in the third quarter of 1977.
In response to the higher levels of unemployment, the
French government halted immigration from outside the
European Community in June 1974 and tightened controls
on illegal immigration. Employment of foreigners with or
without work permits became more strictly monitored. In
1973, foreign workers had constituted about 10 percent of
employment in France.
Another response to rising unemployment was the en­
actment of a new unemployment compensation program
financed jointly by employers and employees, with initial
funding provided by the government, whereby workers laid
off for economic reasons are paid 90 percent of their form­
er gross wage for up to 1 year unless they are reemployed.
This program became effective January 1, 1975. By mid1976, approximately one of every eight persons regis­
tered as unemployed was receiving this high benefit rate.
The amount and duration of official assistance for workers
on short-time schedules was also increased. The government
subsidized 90 percent of employer-paid supplementary as­
sistance for workers on short time. The number of workers
partially unemployed peaked at 385,000 in November
1975, and more than 1.4 million days were compensated
for by unemployment assistance. In 1976, the situation
showed a marked improvement. The number of persons on
short time declined from 300,000 in 1975 to 132,000, and
7 million days were paid for compared to 15 million days in
1975.
Other measures to promote employment were govern­
ment subsidies and financial incentives. The subsidies were
aimed at encouraging the training of unemployed 16- to 25year-olds. Subsidies for training programs of at least 6
months provided up to 100 percent of training costs plus
the minimum wage. The financial incentives were made
available to firms hiring, for at least 1 year, young persons
in search of their first job or persons unemployed more
than 6 months.
Germany. During Germany’s labor shortage of 1960-66,
even normally inactive handicapped and older workers
were integrated into the labor force. Unemployment was




30

below 1 percent from 1961 through 1966, falling to the
extremely low level of 0.3 percent in 1965-66. After these
years of sustained growth, the Germany economy began to
slow down in mid-1966. In 1967, for the first time in the
history of the Federal Republic, real output fell short of
the level of the preceding year. The unemployment rate
more than quadrupled, rising to 1.3 percent in 1967. Em­
ployment of German nationals dropped by over 500,000
in 1967, and almost 300,000 foreign workers left Germany
between mid-1966 and mid-1967.
Recovery from the recession was rapid. Labor short­
ages soon reappeared and the labor market became increas­
ingly tight. By October 1969, over seven vacancies were re­
ported for every one person registered as jobless. Foreign
workers returned to Germany as the economic picture bright­
ened. Unemployment again fell below the 1-percent level in
1969-73.
C h a rt 9.

Germany: Working-Age Population,
Labor Force, and Employment,
Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

Millions
60

I

Ratio scale

55

1'
W orking-age population

I9 6 0

1964

1968

1972

1976

Growth in industrial output leveled off in 1973, and
the labor market began to show signs of easing. The Arab
oil embargo in November accelerated the deterioration,
causing an interruption in German industrial production.
Many firms curtailed production and introduced short-time
workweeks. The number of workers receiving compensation
for short-time work rose sharply to more than 300,000 in
February 1974. By February 1975, a new high of almost 1
million workers were on short time. Despite an average of
more than 770,000 workers on short time, employment fell
by 890,000 in 1975—
which exceeded the increase in unem­
ployment by 400,000. The average number of unemployed
persons in Germany more than quadrupled between 1973
and 1975, and averaged 3.7 percent of the labor force in
the latter year. In 1976 and 1977, joblessness leveled off at
3.6 percent.
Since the late 1950’s, the German work force has
been supplemented by an influx of foreign workers who, at
the peak of the inflow in 1973, constituted 10 percent of
employment. Labor shortages and higher wages in Germany
and lack of job opportunities in Southern Europe made the
German labor market increasingly attractive to migrants.
During periods of recession, foreign workers add an element
of flexibility to the German labor market. (See “Labor mi­
gration” in chapter 5.) In November 1973, a ban was pass­
ed on recruiting foreign workers from outside the European
Community. Foreign workers were reluctant to leave Ger­
many because they believed that they would not be able to
return.
In late 1974 and early 1975, the German government
introduced measures to reduce the number of registered un­
employed foreigners by requiring them to accept jobs which
paid less than their former wages or unemployment com­
pensation. If two such offers were refused, these workers
could no longer collect unemployment benefits. Other
efforts to limit employment of migrants included the pre­
ferential hiring of German nationals, denial of work permits
to dependents of migrants, stiffer penalties for illegally em­
ploying aliens, and restrictions on the right of immigrants
to settle in areas where foreigners constitute more than 12
percent of the population. In response to these restrictions,
the number of foreign workers continued to decline in
1976, while employment of German nationals began to rise.
By mid-1976, the number of migrants in Germany had fall­
en to 19 million, which was about the number of migrants
in 1970.
Great Britain. The jobless rate in Great Britain was below 3
percent during 1959-66 except in 1963, when slackness in
the economy was aggravated by a particularly severe winter
which disrupted outdoor work. However, in 1967 the un­
employment rate rose above 3 percent as measures to al­
leviate serious deficits in the balance of payments took
priority over the full-employment goal. A wage and price
freeze in July 1966 was followed by even more stringent
measures, including devaluation of the pound in 1967. Un


Great Britain: Working-Age Populalation, Labor Force, and Em ploy­
ment, Adjusted to U .S . Concepts,
1960-76

C h a rt 10.

Millions

E m p lo y m e n t

20

Pw

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

employment was in the 3- to 3.4-percent range until 1971
when it jumped to 3.9 percent as British firms engaged in
the biggest work force cutbacks since the depression.5 The
drastic “shake-out” of labor was in response to sharply ris­
ing labor costs and slackening demand. Some of the cut­
backs were viewed as a delayed reaction to the slow growth
of the late 1960’s.6
Unemployment rose throughout 1971 and into 1972.
In February, millions of workers were laid off as a coal strike
caused the Government to decree emergency power cuts for
factories. The 1972 unemployment rate of 4.2 percent was
5
See “Heath Tightening Unemployment.” The Washington Post,
December 6, 1971, p. D 12; and “Britain’s Jobless: A Rapid Rise,”
U.S. News and World Report, May 24, 1971, pp. 84-85.
6British Central Statistical Office, Economic Trends, May 1971,
p. ii.

31

embargo, spiraling inflation, and the instability of the gov­
ernment all combined to create a crisis. Industrial output
fell and the jobless rate rose, reaching 3.4 percent in the
second quarter of 1975. The drop in output in 1975, as
measured by gross domestic product, was the sharpest
among the nine countries studied. Unemployment rose to
3.8 percent in the third quarter of 1976, and averaged 3.6
percent for the year. Unemployment declined in the first
half of 1977, but rose sharply back to 3.6 percent in the
third quarter.
Unemployment does not fully reflect the degree of
labor underutilization in Italy. Agreements reached between
management and labor have helped to share the burden of
recession by encouraging partial rather than full unemploy­
ment. The employer-financed Wage Supplement Fund
allows employers to reduce production while maintaining
employment by placing workers on shorter hours and pay­
ing supplements amounting to 80 percent of lost gross earn-

the highest yet in the postwar era. Economic growth accel­
erated in 1973 and unemployment moved back down to
3.2 percent. However, unemployment began to rise again
with the beginning of the oil crisis in the autumn of 1973.
The Arab oil embargo, combined with labor disputes in the
coal and electricity industries, brought about the imposi­
tion by the Government of a 3-day workweek in early 1974.
In January 1974, the number of workers temporarily laid
off and receiving unemployment compensation was over
900,000, up from only 8,000 in December. Most of these
workers were not counted as unemployed since they did
some work during the week. The number of persons on
temporary layoff fell back to more normal levels in April
and May as industry returned to full workweeks.
In 1974 and 1975 British output declined and in
1976 it rose only slightly. The situation deteriorated mark­
edly from the spring of 1976 onwards, and the second half
of the year saw slow growth, accelerating inflation, and a
growing foreign deficit. Faced with such developments,
economic policy was tightened increasingly from spring on­
wards, and unemployment responded by reaching a post­
war high of 6.4 percent, up from 4.7 percent in 1975. In
1977, unemployment rose further, averaging 7 percent for
the first three quarters.
After rising slowly in the 1960’s through 1966, the
British labor force began to decline in number. By 1971,
it was more than 600,000 below the 1966 high. British pro­
jections for the period, assuming the demand for labor to
remain at the 1964-66 level, had indicated continued slow
increases in the work force. Therefore, the decline ap­
parently reflected withdrawals from or nonappearance in
the labor market of persons discouraged by the bleak job
situation. Since 1971, the labor force has been increasing
by up to 9.5 percent a year as a result of increased partici­
pation by married women. However, employment has not
grown since 1974.

C h a rt 1 1 .

Italy: Working-Age Population,
Labor Force, and Employment,
Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1960-76

M illions

Italy. After reaching 5 percent in 1959, the Italian unem­
ployment rate fell to a low point of 2.4 percent in 1963,
but the decline was accompanied by a sharp increase in the
consumer price index.7 Stringent anti-inflationary measures
were taken beginning in the summer of 1963, but unem­
ployment did not begin to increase until the spring of 1964.
It continued to increase, reaching 3.8 percent in 1966, the
highest rate since 1960. Economic growth picked up strong­
ly in 1967 and joblessness ranged between 3.1 and 3.4 per­
cent until 1972, when it rose to 3.6 percent in lagged re­
sponse to the lengthy recession which began in 1970.
By the second quarter of 1974, unemployment had
fallen to 2.5 percent. However, in mid-1974, the Arab oil
Estimates of the level of unemployment from 1959 to 1972
are considered less reliable than those for 1973 onward because they
are based partly on adjustment factors derived from surveys for later
years. (See appendix B.) However, this probably does not have a
large effect on the year-to-year trend in unemployment.




1960

32

1964

1968

1972

1976

ings. In 1975, over 350 million hours, more than double
the 1974 level and approximately 11 percent of total hours
worked, were compensated for by the fund. Consequently,
the deterioration in the demand for labor in industry is
initially reflected by a decline in working hours and a rise
in the number of persons involuntarily working part time.
Employment increased for the fourth consecutive
year in 1976, a reversal of the general decline of the 1960’s.
The recent rising trend in employment can be attributed
partly to the extensive use of shortened workweeks and the
rapid growth of the service sector.8
The Italian labor force has also been on the rise since
1972, after declining by 9 percent since 1960. The labor
force participation rate, however, continued to decline un­
til 1974 when an upturn in the female rate compensated for
a continuing decline in the male rate. With less than half of
the working-age population in the labor force, Italy has the
lowest participation rate among the major industrial nations.
(See chapter 4.)
C h a rt 12.

(Numbers in thousands)

Unemployment
adjusted to
U.S. concepts
Year
Number
1961
1965
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Rate
(percent)

52
44
79
85
72
59

1.4

Number of
persons in labor
market programs1

1.2
2.1
2.2
1.9
1.5

101

2.6

107
98
80
67

2.7
2.5

66

2.0
1.6
1.6

15
33
48
63
65
70
83
103

112
102
94

112

Unemployment
plus persons in
labor market
programs as
percent of
civilian labor
force
1.9

2.1
3.4
3.9
4.1
3.3
4.6
5.3
5.3
4.5
3.9
4.3

1 Monthly average of persons in training for labor market reasons,
work training programs, public relief works, archive work and relief
work for musicians, and sheltered and semi-sheltered workshops.

Sweden: Working-Age Population,
Labor Force, and Employment,
Adjusted to U.S. Concepts, 1961-76

Arbetsmarknadsstat-

SOURCE: National Labour Market Board,
(Labor Market Statistics), various issues; and BLS calculations.

istik

Sweden. Throughout the period since the Swedish labor
force survey was begun in 1961, unemployment has averaged
about 2 percent, ranging from 1.2 percent (1965) to 2.7
percent (1972). Labor market developments in Sweden dif­
fered markedly from the trend in other industrial countries
during the recent international recession. While most other
industrial countries were deep in the throes of recession,
Sweden’s unemployment rate fell from 2 percent in 1974
to 1.6 percent in 1975 and 1976. Swedish output grew
slowly during the 1974-75 period, while output was fall­
ing sharply in the other countries. A tendency of Swedish
enterprises to hoard labor in anticipation of an upturn in
the world economy helped to maintain employment.9 In
addition, the number of persons in relief works and train­
ing programs was kept at a very high level.
In Sweden, “active labor market” policies are highly
developed and provide a comprehensive system of institu­
tions for retraining and relief works. Sweden’s training pro­
gram is the largest in the world relative to the size of the
labor force; Sweden is the only country which deliberately
uses adult training programs for countercyclical purposes.
The Swedish Labor Market Board acted quickly in the
1967-68 and 1971-72 recessions to meet the unemploy­
ment problem, and its program kept the jobless rate from

Millions

1960

Table 9. Sweden: Effect of labor market programs on
unemployment, selected years, 1961-76

1964




1968

1972

8The high incidence of work done at home in Italy, which goes
virtually unrecorded, is another element to consider when interpret­
ing employment statistics. Partly as a result of legislation passed in
1973, home workers have been increasingly taking up recorded em­
ployment. See Economic Surveys: Italy (Paris, Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, January 1976), p. 14.
Q
The Swedish Economy, Preliminary National Budget (Stock­
holm, Economic Department, Ministry of Finance, 1976), p. 97.

1976

33

Although there has been little organized recruitment
of foreign workers, they constitute about 6 percent of the
Swedish labor force. The majority of these workers come
from the nearby Scandinavian countries—Finland, Denmark,
and Norway. The predominance of Nordic workers is due
to the Convention on a Common Labor Market which allows
free movement of labor among the Scandinavian countries.
Since a cyclically related outflow of migrants in 1973 , the
number of aliens employed in Sweden has risen slowly.

moving higher Table 9 shows the effect of the Swedish
labor market programs on unemployment rates in selected
years of the 1961-76 period, This table shows that Sweden’s
unemployment rate was about 1.5 percent in both 1961
and 1976. However, the great expansion in the number of
persons in labor market programs, from 15,000 to 112,000,
indicates the potential for a large impact on the unemploy­
ment rate. Without the extensive training and relief pro­
grams, the unemployment rate might have been slightly
higher in 1961 and considerably higher in 1976.




34

Chapter 3. Unemployment by Age and Sex

can men. The pattern of unemployment by age and sex in
the other major developed countries often parallels the U.S.
experience; however, there are some significant differences
which are pointed out in this chapter.
Table 10 presents unemployment rates by age and sex
adjusted to U.S, concepts for the nine countries covered in

In the United States, unemployment rates vary widely
by age and sex. Teenagers characteristically have the high­
est unemployment rate of any age group in the labor force;
workers age 55 and over have relatively low jobless rates;
and, throughout the post-World War II period, American
women have had higher unemployment rates than Ameri­
Table 10.

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

(Percent of civilian labor force)
Canada1

United States
Former basis

Sex and age
1968

1970

1974

1975

1976

1968

1970

3.6
12.7
5.8
2.3

4.9
15.3

2.8

8.5
19.9
13.6
6.4
4.7

7.7
19.0

2.2

5.6
16.0
9.0
3.8
2.9

4.8
11.3
6.3
3.6
4.2

5.9
14.3
8.3
4.3
4.9

2.9

4.4
15.0
8.4

7.9

7.0
19.2

5.5
13.5
7.7
4.1
5.0

16.2
10.5
4.8
5.5

Australia
Revised basis

1974

1968

5.4

4.5

1974

1975

1976

1968

1970

1974

1975

1976

5.4

1970

6.9
15.0
9.9
5.1
4.4

7.1
15.8

1.5
4.2
1.9

1.4
3.9

4.2
12.7
5.9
2.7

4.4
13.1

6.4
16.4

Both sexes
All working ages
Teenagers2 . . .
20 to 24 years .
25 to 54 years
55 years and over

8.2
3.4

12.0
5.7
4.6

12.2
8.3
3.8
3.9

5.7

11.6

} 7 .7

} 10.1

>3.4

3 3.9
} 4.2 3 4.0

7.6

10.6
5.3
3.9

1.0

1.6
1,0

2.3
6.9
3.2
1.5

.7

.7

.8

2.2

1.1

1.0

3.7

3.7

1.8
6.1

3.5

3.6
1.5
.7
(4 )

1 1.2

1.2
6

2.9

5.6

11.8
6.1

1.1

2.2

2.3

< )
4

(4 )

2.3

2 1

2.2

3.2
7.7
3.8

5.7
14.3

2.1

3.7
(4 )

5.7
14.6
63
3.8
(4 )

1975

1976

3.4
5.0
3.0

3.6
7.2
5.4
3.0

1.0

2.1

26

3.2

6.6

6.2
2.8
2.0

Male
All working ages
Teenagers2 . . .
20 to 24 years .
25 to 54 years
55 years and over

11.6
5.1
1.7

2.8

2.1

2.9

4.8
14.0
6.7
3.4
2.3

5.9
15.1
7.9
4.5

4.8
15.5
8.7
3.1
2.7

20.1
14.3
5.7
4.5

12.0
4.9
4.4

6.6

5.7
13.5
9.4
4.0
4.3

4.6

5.7

4.8

6.2

}8 .7

}1 1.3

2.2
7.9
3.2
3.6

15.4
10.5
4.2
4.2

6.4
10.9
} 8.6
7.3

14.5
9.2

}3 .5

) 41

11.2
4.3
3.7

Female
All working ages
Teenagers2 . . .
20 to 24 years
25 to 54 years
55 years and over

2.8

6.7
16.5
9.5
4.9
3.3

9.3
19.7
12.7
7.5
5.1

8.6

3.5

18.7
11.9

8.6
4.2

6.8

2.2

4.9

(4 )

4.4

4.9
10.4
3.4
(4 )

}3.5

} 4.5 }5. 1
4.7
] ...... i
L
France5

1974

1975

1976

1968

1970

1.4

1.9
3.7
3.0

2.0
4.1
3.0

2.5
7.3
3.5

2.5
7.0
3.7

1.8
2.1

1.8
26

1.9
6.4
29

1.7
5.4
3
S
2.5

6.6

}6 .5

Japan
1968

1970

1.2

1.2
2.0
2.0

8.1

4.5
11.7
5.1
2.9
(4 )

5.8

6.8

1974

1975

8.4
15.1
9.9
7.0
4.4

2.6

48

4.2

2.6
2.1

2.1
1.8

I4 )

(4 )

6.2

(4 )
Germany 6

1976

i 968 I 1970

1974

Both sexes
All working ages .
Teenagers2 . . . .
20 to 24 years . .
25 to 54 years
55 years and over

2.3

1.8
1.0
1.2

.9
.9

2.6
2.2
1.1
1.5

1.6

1.6
2.0

2.4

3.8
2.8
9.7 16.1
6.6
4.8
1.9
2.6
|
2.5 : 2.3

11 OK

1.5
3.8
1.4

f •->

1.1
1.6

3.2

1.3
3.7
1 .3
.9

4.5

\ 7O

.6
2.0
.7
.5
.5

1.4
2.7
1.9
1.3

6.6

Male
All working ages
Teenagers2 . . .
20 to 24 years .
25 to 54 years .
55 years and over

.
.
.
.

1.2
2.6
1.8
1.0
1.5

1.2
2.7
1.9
.9
1.4

1.4
3.2

2.1
1.1
2.0

2.0

2.2

5.1
3.2

5.5
3.1

1.6
2.8

1.8
3.3

1.2
2.1

1.7
6.7
3.4

0

1.0
2.1

3.0
14.1
6.4
1.9

2.2

\i 7 D
/ c
’ 7 94
X ZM

1.6

.6

1.3
2.7
1.9

.4
.5

1.1
1.0

5.7
2.9
2.3

3.2
6.3
5.2
2.7
2.5

1.6
2.8

36
66

8.1

1.9
1.5

4.2
3.2
1.9

5.5
3.6
2.7

.5
16

Female
All working ages
Teenagers2 . . .
20
24 years ,
25 to 54 years ,
55 years and over

to

.
,
.
.
.

1.2

1.1

1.3

1.8

2.0

1.3

2.1

1.8

2.2

2.2

.9

.9
< )
4

1.3
.7

24
2.7
1.7

L _

1 1

1.7
2.7

2.8
1.7
.7

See footnotes at end of table.




35

3.6
8.5
4.1
3.1

2 1

4 5
38
9.1 I 13.6
4.5 !
3 3 ! 3.6
2 7 j 3.1

i

6.3

5.0
18.7

6.8
3.8
2.4

\/ i1o. 7
o /

1.8

8

4 0

l 4 /
/ *+. 7

1,4
1.5

2.4
.7
7
.5

6,6

1.6

.8

4.2

Table 10. Unemployment rates by age and sex, 1968, 1970, and 1974-76—Continued
(Percent of civilian labor force)
Sex and age

Great Britain
1971

1973

3.9
7.0
4.8
3.3
3.5

3.2

Italy 7

Sweden

1974

1968

1970

1974

1975

2.8
1^ c

4.5

3.5
12.4
9.3

3.2
11.9

3.3
16.8
10.3

2.4
2.7

2.0
1.2

2.9
14.3
9.1
1.3
.4

2.8

3.3
12.5
9.3

2.8
12.2

1.2

.5

16.2
10.3
1.4
.7

1968

1970

1974

1975

2.2

1.5
4.3

2.0
6.8

1.6

1.6

5.6

5.5

2.2
1.1

3.2
1.3

2.8
1.1

2.8
1.1

2,1

1.7

2.0

17

1.5

2.3
5.5
3.1

14
3.4

1.7
5.6

1.3
4.2

1.3
4.2

2.0

1.8
2.6

.9
1.7

2.6
1.1
2.1

2.2
.8

2.2
.8

1.9

1.4

1.7
5.4
2.4
1.3

24

2.0

2.0

8.0

7.0
3.5
1.4
1.5

7.0
3.4
1.4

1976

Both sexes
All working a g e s ........................................................................
Teenagers2 ..................................................................................
20 to 24 years ............................................................................
25 to 54 years ............................................................................
55 years and over ......................................................................

/ 4 '1
2.7
4.1

}

8.8
1.6
.8

1.6
.6

5.6
3.0
1.7

Male
All working a g e s ........................................................................
Teenagers2 ............................ .....................................................
20 to 24 years ............................................................................
25 to 54 years ............................................................................
55 years and over .................................................. ..................

3.9
7.4
4.8
3.1
4.3

3.5
,

A A

C
/ H.D

\ A

8.7

2.5
14.3
9.0

2.8

2.8

2.5

2.0

4.9

2.6

1.5

1.6
1.0

4.1
11.9
9.1

3.9
11.5
9.0

3.8
14.1
9.3

4.5
17.5
10.3

2.1
6.6

2.0

1.6

1.6

.3

.4

(4 )

2.1
.2

1.6
1.2

Female
All working a g e s .........................................................................
Teenagers2 ..................................................................................
20 to 24 years . . . .
...........................................................
24 to 54 years ............................................................................
55 years and over .................................................................. ...

3.8
6 .6

4.7
3.6
2.0

2.7

2.8

^ 3.8

\> *f.*+
A A

2.5
1.9

2.4
2.9

*See appendix B for descriptions of the former and revised
series.
2 14- to 19-year-olds in Italy; 15- to 19-year-olds in Australia,
Canada, Germany, Great Britain (1971), and Japan; 1 6 -to 19-yearolds in United States, France, Great Britain (1973-74), and Sweden.
3 Estimated by BLS.
4 Not statistically significant.

this report. Data are shown for selected years of the 196876 period. British statistics on unemployment by age and
sex could only be shown for years when the General House­
hold Survey was available. For Italy, data could not be ad­
justed to U.S. concepts by age and sex. To provide some
basis for comparison, figures from the unrevised Italian
labor force survey have been shown in table 10. It is not
possible to indicate how well these figures approximate un­
employment by age and sex under U.S. concepts. The data
exclude many persons who were seeking work but who did
not respond that they were unemployed; on the other hand,
the data include a large number of persons who took no
active steps to find work in the past 30 days. (See appendix
B.) It should also he noted that the data for France and
Germany relate to one month in each year and are not
seasonally adjusted.
The year 1968 was one of relatively low unemploy­
ment in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Japan,
but one of relatively high unemployment, for the 1960’s,
in the European countries. Of the years covered, 1975 and
1976 were the ones of highest unemployment in all coun­
tries except Italy and Sweden.
Four age groups are shown-teenagers. 20 to 24 years,
25 to 54 years, and 55 years and over. However, for Great
Britain, a breakdown of teenagers and 20- to 24-year-olds
could not be made in 1973 and 1974; for France, this break­




36

2.9

1.6

4.0
1.6

2.3

1.6

5 French data are for March of each year.
6German data are for April of 1968, 1970, and 1974, and for
May of 1975 and 1976.

Italian data are not adjusted to U.S. concepts.
NOTE: See appendix C for methods of adjustment to U.S.
concepts by age and sex.

down could not be made for 1976. The lower age limit foi
teenagers has been adapted to the age at which compulsory
schooling ends. Appendix C discusses the methods of adjust­
ing each country’s unemployment rates by age and sex.
Teenage unemployment

In the United States, young workers have had sub­
stantially higher rates of unemployment than adults. In
fact, in every year since the end of World War II, in re­
cession and prosperity alike, teenagers have had the high­
est unemployment rates of any age group in the labor
force. The casual methods teenagers use to find jobs, their
frequent entrances and exits from the labor market, and the
limited horizon of their job search activities are major con­
tributing factors.1 American teenagers change jobs more
frequently than adults and often experience unemploy­
ment between jobs. Also, the large proportion of in-school
teenagers who seek part-time or part-year work contrib­
utes to high youth unemployment in the United Slates.
Some of the major factors affecting youth unemployment
rates in the United States and abroad are discussed in chap­
ter 5.
1 Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages, BLS Bulletin 1657.
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1970), p. 4.

Table 11. Ratios o f teenage to adult unemployment rates1, 1968, 1970, and 1974-76
Both sexes
Country
United S ta te s ...................................... .
Canada
Former basis . ...................................
Revised basis......................................
Australia..................................................
Japan ......................................
France . ......................................... ...
Germany .........................................
Great Britain .........................................
Italy 4 ......................................................
Sweden ..................................................
1

Male

Female

1968

1970

1974

1975

1976

1968

1970

1974

1975

1976

1968

1970

1974

1975

1976

5.5

4.5

4.2

3.1

3.3

6.8

5.4

5.0

3.5

3.9

4.1

3.4

3.4

2.6

2.8

3.1
(2 )
4.2
2.3
4.1
3.5
(2 )

3.3
(2 >
3,9

3.2
3.0
4.6
2.4
5.1

(2 )
2.9
4.7
2.3

< )
2
3.0
4.7

3.3
< )
2
5.1

3.4
(2 )

< >
2

(2)
2.2

6 .2

4.0
(2 )
2.3
1.4

2.1

6.2
2.2

< )
2
2.4
(2 )
(2 )
5.0

5.3
4.1
(2 )

6 .0

2.8

3.8
1.9
(2 )

3.9
1.4
4.9

3.8

3.0

< )
2
3.8
5.1
3.1
(2 )
2.3
(2 )
(2 )
5.2

3.1
(2 )
3.7

2.6

(2 )
3.7
5.1
3.2
7.4
2.3
< )
2

3.9
< )
2
2.3

2.6

3.4
3.8
5.5
2.9
6.7
2.4
(2 )
11.9
5.1

2.1

2.2

(2 )
8.3
5.0

(2 )
< )
2
5.0

6 .2

3.3

2.2

3.9
4.0

2.1

3 2.1

(2 )

7.4
3.9

11.0

5.2

(2 )
10.5
5.1
4

Ratio of teenage unemployment rate to unemployment rate
for persons 25 to 54 years of age.
2 Not available.

6 .2

3.1

4.0
3 2.3
7.6
3.8

11.6

5.2

2,2

2.7
2.9
(2 )
6 .0

4.1

3.4
3 1.9
7,2
4.2

1.6

8 .8

5.0

1.6

(2 )

Based on data which have not been adjusted to U.S. concepts.
SOURCE: Table 10.

3 19 71.

In comparison with most other countries, teenage un­
employment rates in the United States are relatively high
(table 10 and chart 13). In the United States, Italy, and
Canada, teenage unemployment rates were higher than 10
percent in all years studied. Unemployment of Australian
and French teenagers exceeded 10 percent for the first time
in 1975. Japan, Germany, and Sweden had the lowest
levels of teenage unemployment during the period studied.
These countries also had the lowest overall unemployment
rates.
Germany's teenage unemployment rate of 3.8 percent
in April 1968 was high by the standards of earlier years of
the decade, when teenage unemployment was 1 percent or
less. The German recession of 1967 hit teenagers the hard­
est. According to a report from the American Embassy in
Bonn, a wave of cyclical dismissals largely affected youths
with a low level of education working at unskilled jobs
which had offered relatively high pay during the boom peri­
od. The need for employers to economize during the reces­
sion led to the cancellation of many odd jobs filled by the
unskilled youths. By 1969, Germany was again experienc­
ing labor shortages, and in April 1970, teenagers had an
unemployment rate of only 2 percent. By 1974, the teen­
age jobless rate was still under 3 percent. However, a sharp
increase occurred in 1975, and teenage unemployment rose
further to over 7 percent in 1976, the highest teenage rate
ever recorded by the German Microcensus, which began in
1957.
Youth unemployment in Japan was under 3 percent
throughout 1968-74, but moved upward sharply in 197576. The 1976 rate of 4.1 percent, however, was still the
lowest of any country studied. There is a strong preference
by employers for hiring new high school graduates in Japan,
as shown by the normally highly favorable job vacancy
situation for graduates. Lifetime employment contracts
insure that youth wages are low relative to those of adults
and that youth turnover is low. Also, teenagers account for
a very small and declining proportion of the labor force in
Japan.



Teenage unemployment rates are, of course, affected
by the overall job situation in each country. Therefore,
comparative ratios of teenage unemployment rates to un­
employment rates for 25- to 54-year-old adults are shown
in table 11 and chart 14. Such ratios may be affected by the
general level of unemployment, but they more accurately
reflect the relative problems of youth unemployment among
countries. In all years studied, Italy had the widest teenageadult differential.2 In 1968, teenage unemployment was 6
times as high as adult joblessness. Teenage unemployment
in Italy was down slightly in 1970, but the differential
widened so that youth unemployment was 7 times the
adult rate. By 1974-75, the differential had grown to over
10. In 1975, Italian teenagers constituted 6 percent of the
labor force and 32 percent of the unemployed. Problems of
teenagers in the Italian labor market are intensified by a
high dropout rate from school. Over half of Italian youths
entering the labor market have not completed high school.
The United States also ranked high in terms of the
teenage to adult ratio in 1968 and 1970, with teenagers ex­
periencing 4.5 to 5.5 times the unemployment rate of
adults. However, in 1974, Australia, France, and Sweden
moved above the United States. In U.S. recessionary peri­
ods, the gap between youth and adult unemployment rates
usually narrows. Thus, the ratio declined from 4.5 in 1970,
to 4.2 in 1974, and to 3.1 in 1975. In contrast, between
1970 and 1975, the ratio of teenage to adult unemployment
rose sharply in Australia, France, Italy, and Sweden.
Canada had relatively high youth unemployment
rates, but a relatively low ratio of youth to adult unemploy­
ment. The ratio was about 3 to 1 in each year and was lower
than in Australia, France, Germany, and Sweden where the
overall level of unemployment and teenage unemployment
rates were much lower.
Great Britain and Japan are the countries with the
lowest ratios of teenage to adult unemployment. Data from
2

37

The Italian data were not adjusted to U.S. concepts.

Chart 13.

Youth Unemployment Rates, 1968 and 1976

United States

Canada

Australia

Japan

France

Germany

Great Britain




Sweden

0

5

10

15

Percent

38

20

25

the 1975 European Community labor force survey indicate
that the youth-adult differential remained at about 2 for
the United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
The differential has been in the 2.2-2.6 range in Japan. The
ability of the British to keep youth unemployment relatively
low, even during a recession period for the economy, is
related to the special efforts made to help bridge the transi­
tion from school to work. British teenagers are assisted by
widespread counseling, guidance, and job orientation pro­
grams in the schools, and a separate employment service
for out-of-school youth. The 1,500 officers of the Youth
Employment Service in Great Britain provide individual
counseling to the great majority of school leavers and help
place a significant number of them in their first job. (See
chapter 5.)
Unemployment

Chart 14.

United
States

Canada

of older workers

Australia

In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the unemploy­
ment rate for U.S. workers age 55 and over was somewhat
higher than the rate for workers in the primary working
ages of 25 to 54. Beginning with 1957, however, the unem­
ployment rate for older workers has been either at the same
level or lower than the rate for 25- to 54-year-olds. In 1970,
for example, older workers had a 2.8-percent unemployment
rate; workers age 25 to 54, a 3.4-percent unemployment
rate. The figures shown in table 10 for the eight foreign
countries are based on only a few years’ data, but they in­
dicate some similarities and some dissimilarities with the
U.S. older worker pattern.
Older workers in Italy have much lower unemploy­
ment rates than workers in the primary working ages. In
the years studied, the unemployment rate for Italian work­
ers 55 and over was only about half the rate for persons age
25 to 54. The very low unemployment rates for older work­
ers in Italy are related to the fact that very few persons over
55 remain economically active. The labor force participa­
tion rate for older Italians was only about 25 percent in
1968 and it has since declined. Italians over age 55 have the
lowest participation rate among the major developed coun­
tries.
Similar to the U.S. pattern, unemployment rates for
older workers in Australia appear to be at about the same lev­
el as or somewhat lower than the rates for workers in the pri­
mary working ages. Japanese unemployment rates for old­
er workers were about the same as or slightly higher than the
rates for 25- to 54-year-olds in 1968 and 1970. However,
in 1974-76 the differential widened. In Germany, workers
55 and over had a higher unemployment rate than workers
in the primary working ages in April 1968, a period of
relatively high unemployment for Germany. However, with
the reappearance of labor shortages, older workers were
easily absorbed. By April 1970, their unemployment rate
was as low as that of persons aged 25 to 54; since April
1974 it has been lower. In contrast to the other countries,



Ratio of Teenage to Aduit
Unemployment Rates, 1968
and 1976

Japan

France

Germany

Great
Britain

Italy

Sweden

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Ratio

older workers in France, Great Britain, and Sweden appear
to have unemployment rates significantly higher than those
of workers in the primary working ages. This was also true
for Canada in 1968 and 1970, but in 1974 the unemploy­
ment rate for older workers was about the same as the rate

39

for 25- to 54-year-olds. In 1975-76, the jobless rate for old­
er workers moved well below the rate for 25- to 54-yearolds.
The preceding analysis based on data for all workers
55 and over obscures a sharp difference in the unemploy­
ment experience of older men and older women relative to
persons in the primary working ages. Prior to the 1974-75
recession, men 55 and over usually had higher unemploy­
ment rates than men aged 25 to 54. Women 55 and over,
on the other hand, generally have unemployment rates at
about the same level as or lower than women aged 25 to 54.
The only exception is Sweden, where older women usually
have had higher unemployment rates than women in the
primary working ages.
Differences among the countries in the unemploy­
ment experience of all older workers are partly explained
by this contrast between men and women 55 and over. The
relatively high unemployment rates for older workers in
Canada (1968 and 1970), France, and Great Britain-com­
pared with workers aged 25 to 54-stem from relatively
high unemployment rates for older male workers.

ent in 1971 and 1974. The higher male rates in 1973 are
largely attributable to the high unemployment rate for men
55 years of age and over. The 1975 European Community
labor force survey indicated that the unemployment rate
for women (5.2 percent) was 1 percentage point higher
than the rate for men (4.2 percent) in the United Kingdom
(Great Britain and Northern Ireland).4
In Canada, the former labor force survey consistently
recorded significantly higher unemployment rates for men
than for women. However, the revised survey, which con­
tains more probing into labor force status, found that fe­
male unemployment was much higher than male unemploy­
ment in 1976. Revisions on the new basis for earlier years
indicate that unemployment rates for women were slightly
lower than for men in 1968 and slightly higher in 1970. A
Canadian researcher attributed the lower unemployment
rates for women recorded in the 1960’s to the fact that
Canadian women were less fully committed to labor force
activity than were women in other industrial countries.5
Thus, Canadian women tended to bypass unemployment
when both entering and leaving employment.
Women in the United States have higher unemploy­
ment rates than men largely because of higher rates for
women in the prime working ages of 25 to 54. Since 1964,
teenage girls have also had a somewhat higher incidence of
unemployment than teenage boys, except during 1975-76.
The pattern in Australia, France, Germany, and Sweden
appears to be similar, with women 25-54 and teenage girls
having higher unemployment rates than men in these age
groups.

Unemployment by sex

In the United States, Australia, France, Germany,
Sweden,3 and Italy, women are more likely to be unem­
ployed than men. There do not appear to be any signifi­
cant differences between male and female unemployment
rates in Japan, except among teenagers. Teenage girls have
lower unemployment rates than teenage boys in Japan.
In Great Britain, unemployment was higher for men
than for women in 1973, but the rates were about equival­

4The EC survey results should be closely comparable to the figures
shown in table 10 for Great Britain. The 1973 EC survey indicated
an unemployment rate of 3.6 percent for British men and 2.6 per­
cent for British women. See appendix E for a description of the EC
survey.
5 Sylvia Ostry, Unemployment in Canada (Ottawa, Dominion
Bureau of Statistics, 1968), pp. 5-7.

3 For Sweden, the higher male unemployment rate in 1968 was an
exception. From 1961 through 1967 and 1970 through 1976, female
unemployment rates were higher than the male rates.




40

Chapter 4. Participation Rates and Employment-Population Ratios

people, women, the elderly—may vary considerably depend­
ing on the labor market situation, usually tending to rise
in periods of high demand and fall in periods of slack. In
periods of economic downturn, there is normally a nega­
tive impact on participation rates due to discouragement
of marginal workers. Working in the opposite direction,
however, unemployment affecting the principal income
earners of households may encourage previously nonactive
members to seek employment. (See section below on cy­
clical trends.)
Unlike the long-term trends, short-term movements in
participation rates and employment-population ratios may
diverge. Thus, an expansion in the labor force may cause
the participation rate to rise, while the employment ratio
holds steady or falls because the number of persons seeking
work increases even faster than the number actually finding
jobs.
Table 12 presents civilian labor force participation
rates by sex adjusted to U.S. concepts for nine countries.
Data are shown by sex because the overall rate masks marked
differences in the trends for men and women. All participa­
tion rates are annual averages except those for France,
which are for March or October as indicated on the table.
Employment-population ratios for nine countries are
shown in table 13. These figures have not been shown sep­
arately by sex, but the long-term trends would be quite
similar to the participation rate trends by sex.

The labor force participation rate is the proportion of
the population of working age that is in the labor force. For
example, the 1975 civilian population age 16 and over in
the United States was 151,269,000 and the number of per­
sons in the civilian labor force was 92,613,000; consequently,
the civilian labor force participation rate was 61.2 percent.1
The main economic interest in participation rates lies in
their usefulness in explaining fluctuations in the labor force.
The employment-population ratio is derived by
dividing civilian employment by the civilian working-age
population. Thus, the employment-population ratio is the
major component of the labor force participation rate, the
only difference being that the numerator of the employ­
ment ratio excludes unemployment.
For certain purposes the employment-population
ratio may be a better indicator of the labor market than the
traditional measure, the unemployment rate.2 Employment
is a more precisely measurable condition than unemploy­
ment and, since it is much larger, it is subject to smaller
relative statistical error. Seasonal adjustment is more accu­
rate since seasonal changes are relatively small. Also, the
labor force itself may fluctuate seasonally, in contrast to
the population, which incorporates no seasonal movements.
While the unemployment rate is potentially subject to wide
variations as a result of special developments leading to
growth or contraction in the labor force, the employmentpopulation ratio includes a more stable base for a measure
of labor market activity.
Since participation rates and employment-popula­
tion ratios are closely related by definition, they are in­
fluenced by similar factors and show similar long-term
trends. Over the long term, both measures are chiefly in­
fluenced by structural factors of a social and economic
character: Trends toward longer years of schooling, early
retirement, and changing attitudes toward the role of
women. In the short term, changes in these rates largely
reflect fluctuations in business activity. The rate of par­
ticipation of some segments of the population—young

Comparative levels and trends

The overall labor force participation rate in 1976 was
over 60 percent in the United States and five other countries.
Sweden had the highest activity rate at 65 percent. Italy,
with 48 percent of the working-age population economically
active, had the lowest activity rate in the industrialized
world. The rankings by emplovment-populatioii ratios
were about the same as those by participation rates.
Australia and Japan had the highest male activity
rates—81 percent—and Sweden had, by far, the highest fe­
male rate at 55 percent. Italy and Germany had the low­
est rates for men and Italy had the lowest rate for women.
The female activity rate in Italy was only about one-half
of the rate in Sweden.
Only the United States, Canada, and Sweden had
higher overall activity rates in 1976 than in the early 1960’s.
Based on data since 1964, the trend in Australia has also
been upward. For these countries, sharp increases in female
activity rates more than offset falling male rates.

^ h e U.S. labor force participation rate is usually published in
terms of the total population and labor force over age 16, including
the Armed Forces. In 1975, the participation rate including the
Armed Forces was 61.8 percent. Civilian participation rates are
analyzed in this section for purposes of international comparability.
2James E. McCarthy, “Employment and Inflation in Major In­
dustrial Countries,” The Conference Board Worldbusiness Perspec­
tives No. 28, (August 1975), p. 4. See also Julius Shiskin, “Employ­
ment and Unemployment: The Doughnut or the Hole?” Monthly
Labor Review, February 1976, pp. 3-10.




41

Table 12.

Labor force participation rates by sex, 1960-76

Year

United
States

Canada

Australia

Japan

59.4
59.3
58.8
58.7
58.7
58.9
59.2
59.6
59.6
60.1
60.4
60.2
60.4
60.8
61.2
61.2
61.6

J56.2
56.1
*5 5 .9
*5 5 .9
*5 6 .2
*5 6 .5
57.3
57.6
57.6
57.9
57.8
58.1
58.6
59.7
60.5
61.1
61.1

(1 3
2)
<
2)
(2 )
(2 )
58.7
59.1
59.5
59.8
59.9
60.2
60.8
60.7
60.8
61.1
61.4
61.6
61.4

67.9
67.8
66.9
65.7
64.8
64.4
64.6
64.8
64.9
64.6
64.5
64.2
63.8
64.0
63.0
62.4
62.3

3 (*)
o1.4
-6 0 .6
3 60.4
59.7
3 59.8
58.9
58.6
58.3
58.0
57.7
57.9
57.8
58.0
58.7
58.7

83.3
83.2
82.0
81.4
81.0
80.7
80.4
80.4
80.1
79.8
79.7
79.1
79.0
78.8
78.7
77.9
77.5

182.2
1 81.3
*8 0 .6
j 80.0
‘ 79.7
79.4
79.8
79.3
78.7
78.3
77.8
77.4
77.5
78.2
78.7
78.4
77.7

(2 )
(2 )
(2 )
(2 )
84.2
84.0
84.1
83.7
83.3
83.3
83.2
82.6
82.5
82.1
81.6
81.0
80.6

84.2
84.3
83.6
82.5
81.5
81.1
81.1
81.0
81.7
81.5
81.5
81.9
81.8
81.8
81.5
81.0
80.9

3 ( 2)
83.6
83.7
82.5
- 8 1 .5
81.3
79.8
78.4
77.6
77.1
76.6
76.3
75.6
75.2
75.8
75.2

37.7
38.1
37.9
38.3
38.7
39.3
40.3
41.1
41.6
42.7
43.3
43.3
43.9
44.7
45.6
46.3
47.3

1 30.2

i2 )

31.0
31.3
:3 2 .0
.3 2 .9
33.9
35.4
36.5
37.1
38.0
38.3
39.4
40.2
41.8
42.9
44.2
45.0

< )
2
(2 )
(2 )
33.4
34.4
35.3
36.3
36.9
37.6
38.9
39.2
39.5
40.6
41.6
42.5
42.6

France

Germany

Great
Britain

Italy

Sweden

60.0
59.9
59.6
59.4
59.0
58.7
58.2
57.0
57.1
57.1
57.0
56.5
55.8
55.4
54.4
53.5
53.2

60.7
61.5
60.9
61.0
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.6
60.2
59.8
59.4
59.1
59.4
60.8
60.5
61.0
61.5

58.0
57.4
56.3
54.7
53.9
52.8
51.2
51.2
50.5
50.1
49.5
49.2
48.0
47.9
47.9
47.9
48.0

< )
2
63.2
63.9
64.4
63.0
62.8
63.1
62.2
62.4
62.3
62.9
63.2
63.1
63.0
63.8
64.9
65.3

82.7
82.7
82.2
81.8
81.4
80.8
80.5
79.3
79.1
79.1
78.8
77.7
76.4
75.2
73.6
72.1
72.1

8 6 .0

85.5
84.9
84.9
84.1
83.5
83.1
82.4
81.7
80.8
79.8
79.1
78.8
80.1
4 78.9
4 78.8
79.0

84.7
83.8
82.4
80.9
80.3
79.2
77.5
77.5
76.3
75.5
74.5
74.1
72.6
71.7
71.3
71.0
70.5

(2 )
83.3
83.0
82.8
81.2
80.7
80.2
79.1
78.9
77.5
77.2
76.8
76.1
75.7
75.7
76.0
75.8

33.8
33.8
33.0
31.2
30.1
28.9
27.4
27.4
27.2
27.1
26.8
26.6
25.7
26.1
26.6
26.9
27.6

< >
2
43.4
45.5
46.9
45.6
45.6
46.6
45.8
46.9
47.6
49.0
50.0
50.5
50.8
52.4
54.2
55.2

Both sexes
1960 . . ................
1961
...............
1962 ................ . .
1963 ......................
1964 . . . . . . . .
1965 . . . . . . . .
1966 ......................
1967 . . ................
1968 ......................
1969 ......................
1970 ......................
1 9 7 1 ......................
1972 ......................
1973 ......................
1974 ......................
1975 ......................
1976 ................... ...

3 61.8

Men
1960 ......................
1 9 6 1 ......................
1962 . . . . . . . .
1963 ......................
1964 ................
1965 ......................
1966 ......................
1967 ................ ... .
1968 ......................
1969 ......................
1970 ......................
1 9 7 1 ......................
1972 ......................
1973 ......................
1974 ......................
1975 ......................
1976 ................... ...

3 84.3

Women
1960 ......................
1 9 6 1 ......................
1962 ......................
1963 ......................
1964 ......................
1965 ......................
1966 ................
1967 ......................
1968 ......................
1969 ................... ...
1970 ................ ... .
1 9 7 1 ......................
1972 .* ...................
1973 ......................
1974 ......................
1975 ......................
1976 .......................

52.7
52.4
51.3
50.0
49.3
48.8
49.2
49.6
49.2
48.8
49.3
47.7
46.8
47.3
45.7
44.8
45.0

Not available.

3Data for October of 1960, 1962, 1964, and 1966. Data for all
other years are for March.
Preliminary estimate.




3 ( 2)
42.6
-4 0 .9
41.5
-4 0 .6
41.4
40.8
41.2
41.4
41.2
40.9
41.7
42.1
42.6
43.1
43.8

41.2
41.0
40.7
40.7
40.3
40.0
39.4
38.4
38.6
38.7
38.6
38.4
38.1
38.3
37.9
37.5
37.7

38.7
39.2
39.5
39.8
40.2
40.7
41.1
40.9
40.8
41.0
41.1
41.3
41.9
43.6
44.5
4 * 5 .2
45.8

NOTE: Data relate to the civilian labor force of working age as
a percent of the civilian population of working age. Working age
is defined as 16-year-olds and over in the United States, France,
and Sweden; 15-year-olds and over in Australia, Canada, Germany,
and Japan; and 14-year-olds and over in Italy. For Great Britain,
the lower age lim it was raised from 15 to 16 in 1973.

1 Estimates by BLS on new survey definitions. Canada has made
revisions back to 1966 on the new basis.
2

3 43.0

42

Table 13.

E m ploym erit-population ra tio s,1 1960 78

Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976

. . . . . . . .
. . ................
. . ................
...................
......................
................... .
. . ................
................... .
......................
...................
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
................ . ,
......................
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

United
States
56.1
55.4
55.5
55.4
55.7
56.2
56.9
57.3
57.5
58.0
57.4
56.6
57.0
57.8
57.8
56.0
56.8

Canada

Australia

2 52.6
2 52.4
2 52.9
2 53.1
2 5 3 .8
2 54.5

6
6
0
{3)

55.4
55.4
55.0
55.3
54.5
54,5
54.9
56.4
57.3
56.8
56.7

57.9
58.3
58.7
58.9
58.0
59.3
60.0
59.8
59.4
60.0
60.0
58.9
58.7

France

66.7

66.8
66.0
66.3
64.1
63.6
63,7
64.0
64.1
63.9
63.8
63.4
62.8
63.2
62.2
61.2
61.1

Germany

Great
Britain

Italy

Sweden

58.6
58.1
57.1
56.2
56.4
55.7
55.6
55.4
55.1
55.4
55.5
55.4
55.3
55.4
55.6
54.5
54.4

Japan

59.4
59.6
59.3
59.2
58.8
58.6
58.0
56.3
56.2
56.6
56.6
56.1
55.3
54.9
53.5
51.5
51.3

59.4
59.7
59.2
59.0
59.4
59,6
59.6
58.5
58.2
58.0
57.5
56 8
56.9
58.9
53.8
4 58.2
4 57.5

55.8
55.6
54.7
53,4
52.5
50.9
49.2
49.5
48.8
48.4
48.0
47.7
46.4
46.2
46.6
46.4
46.3

< >
3
62.2
63.0
63.4
62.0
62.1
62.1
60.9
61.0
61.1
61.9
61.6
61.4
61.4
62.6
63.8
64.2

3Civilian employment, adjusted to U.S. concepts, as a percent
of the civilian working-age population. The data relate to.persons
16 and over for the United States, France, Sweden, and, beginning
in 1S73, Great Britain; 16 and over for Canada, Japan, Germany,
and prior to 1973, Great Britain; and 14 and over for Italy.

2 Estimates by BLS on new survey definitions. Canada has made
revisions back to 1966 on the new basis.
3 Not available.
4 Preliminary.

A downward trend in male participation rates has
occurred in all countries and is attributable to earlier re­
tirement and longer years of schooling. The age structure of
the population also has some effect. Although declining,
male activity rates were still considerably higher than fe­
male rates in 1976. However, the gap between male and fe­
male rates has narrowed significantly since 1960 in most
countries, For example, Canada’s male activity rate was
2.7 times the female participation rate in 1960; by 1976,
it was only 1.7 times the female rate.
Since I960, female activity rates have fallen in Japan,
Germany, and Italy. The trend in France is difficult to ana­
lyze because the data for 1960, 1962, 1964, and 1966 re­
late to October while figures for 1967 onward are for
March. The available data indicate falling female participa­
tion in the labor force between 1960 and 1966 and a rising
trend since 1972.
In Germany, female participation rates rose in the
1950’s, but began to fall in the 1960’s, intensifying the
labor shortage in that country. Adult female activity has
been rising in Germany, but it has not been sufficient to
make up for a sharp drop in participation by teenage girls
brought about by the extension of schooling. The activity
rate for teenage girls has dropped about 20 percentage
points since 1960. The relatively low level of female labor
force participation in Germany may also be related to the
relatively small share of total employment which is in the
service sector.3
In Italy and Japan, female participation rates have
fallen since 1960 for all age groups, in Italy, the declining
trend ended in 1972, but female activity rates have con­
tinued to fall in Japan, except for a slight increase in 1976.3

A major factor in the long-term trends for Italy and Japan
has been the sharp postwar decline in agricultural employ­
ment in both countries.4 As countries develop industrially,
the initial response of female activity is to fall, along with
the decline in importance of agriculture in the economy.
Women who were economically active as unpaid family
workers on the farm generally withdraw from the labor
force when the family moves to the city. In most instances,
their family responsibilities, low skill qualifications, and
insufficient demand for their services discourage them from
looking for a job. In Italy, about 1 million unpaid female
family workers have left the agricultural sector since i960;
in Japan, about 3 million unpaid female workers have moved
out of agriculture.
Surveys were made in Italy beginning in 1971 on the
reasons for nonparticipation in the labor force.5 In 1971,
women made up 80 percent of the nonparticipants, and
family duties were held responsible for nonparticipation
in more than half the cases. These figures indicated a like­
lihood that an improvement in the Italian preschooling
structures could significantly increase the rate of female
economic activity.6
See footnote 3.
5Istituto Centrale di Statistica, “Indagine speciale suite persone
non appartenemi alle forze di lavoro,” Supplement to the Monthly
Bulletin o f Statistics, No. 11, November 1911; Annuario diStatistiche de Lavoro, 1975, pp. 109-16, and 1976, pp. 103-15.
6 Data compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development indicate that in Italy 62 percent of children be­
tween the ages of 3 and 6 were enrolled in school in 1970. This was
a smaller proportion than in Belgium (96 percent) and France (88
percent), but larger than in the United Kingdom (60 percent) and
the United States (57 percent). See OECD, Educational Statistics
Yearbook, Volume 1, International tables, p. 27.
4

3 See me section on sectoral employment in ch. 2.



43

Along with falling participation rates for women,
Germany and Italy also had absolute declines in the fe­
male labor force. Japan, on the other hand, had a rising
female labor force, but it did not rise as fast as the work­
ing-age population, so the participation rate declined.
In Italy, female participation rates began to rise in
1973, after many years of decline. This increase may be
partly because home workers progressively are taking up
recorded employment as a result of legislation passed in
1973.7 According to projections by the ILO, a moderate
rise in female labor force participation is foreseen for
Japan, Italy, and Germany in the later 1970’s, reversing
the former long-term trend.8
After the initial fall in female activity rates which
comes with the decline of agriculture, a second stage of
development witnesses a rise in women’s activity rates.
This second stage can be seen most recently in France.
Female activity rates declined until the mid-1960’s and
then began to rise. In the United States, female partici­
pation rates rose during most of the post-World War II
period, increasing from about 32 percent just after the
war to 38 percent in 1960 and 47 percent in 1976. Signifi­
cant increases also occurred in Canada, Australia, and
Sweden. In Great Britain, a more moderate increase oc-

curred, but Britain already had a relatively high level in
1960. France has had only a slight rise in female parti­
cipation since 1965.
Underlying the rise in female participation rates in
many countries have been the following factors: Lessen­
ing of job discrimination against women, increased avail­
ability of part-time work, declines in fertility rates, a high
rate of increase in jobs in the service sector, and changing
attitudes towards women’s role in society.
Sweden’s high and rapidly rising female participa­
tion rate indicates a more active involvement of married
women in economic life compared with other nations. In
Sweden, 53 percent of married women work, compared
with roughly 46 percent in Japan, 41 percent in the United
States and Great Britain, 38 percent in France, and only 33
percent in Germany. Several factors are responsible for the
high Swedish rate. In Sweden many married women have
no children or only one child. Furthermore, over 60 per­
cent of women with preschool-age children work in
Sweden, compared with about 30 percent in the United
States. Government-financed day care centers provide for
infant care, beginning with children 6 months of age, when
maternity leave expires.9 The introduction of separate tax­
ation for married women in 1971, parenthood insurance

7Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
Economic Survey of Italy, (Paris, OECD, January 1976), p. 14.
8International Labour Office, Labour Force 1950-2000, Vols. IV
and V (Geneva, ILO, 1977).

9The Swedish facilities for day care, although extensive compared
with other countries, still fall short of meeting estimated needs. See
Alice H. Cook, The Working Mother, A Survey of Problems and Pro­
grams in Nine Countries (Ithaca, Cornell University, 1975), p. 31.

Table 14.

Labor force participation rates by age and sex, 19731

Sex and age

United
States

Australia

Canada

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Sweden

61.9
86.8

59.8
91.1

49.7
85.3

} 97.4

} 96.4

} 96.3

J 97.4

j 97.3

J 94.9

} 94.6

86.2
69.1
22.8

89.1
76.0
21.4

35.8
68.2
93.5
98.3
98.1
97.2
95.2
90.7
79.0
43.3
10.4

25.2
79.5
96.9
98.1
98.1

} 93.0

62.1
83.6
93.0
98.1
98.7
98.4
96.7
93.9
86.2
68.5
15.0

53.7

} 95.9

31.1
83.9
96.5
99.1
99.0
98.3
97.3
94.3
83.7
64.1
15.9

47.9
61.2

55.7
61.9

39.8
62.5

} 50.2

| 43.6

}4 5 .2

} 53.3

J 50.4

J 43.7

24.8
68.7
63.8
56.2
53.6
53.7
54.8
53.5
45.2
34.1
7. 0

60.4
67.0
53.4
48.1
48.5
50.0
50.7
46.5
36.0
17.7
5. 7

26.1
42.0
34.0
30.3
29.6
30.3
29.6
25.8
16.5
9.1
2.1

Men
Teenagers . .............
20-24 ......................
25-29 ......................
30-34 . . . . . . . .
35-39 ......................
40-44 ......................
45-49 ........................
50-54 ................... ...
55-59 ......................
60-64 ......................
65 and o v e r .............

} 81.3
18.3

)
[97 .2

78.4
| 93.7
| 95.0
J94.3

}8 6 .8

J 32.7

46.7

2 23.9

27.9
67.0
44.4
46.8
56.3

49.8
67.6

Women
Teenagers ................
20-24 ......................
25-29 ......................
30-34 ................... ...
35-39 .......................
40-44 ................... ...
45-49 ......................
50-54 ......................
55-59 ......................
60-64 ......................
65 and over . . . . .

} 53.7

} 45.2

47.4
34.2
8. 9

30.5
16.4
3. 4

11972 data for Italy and Germany.

|4 2 .9
) 31.0
4. 4

44

j 71.5
J 71.0

J44.5

} 46.3

‘16.9

2 7.4

NOTE: Data are not adjusted to U.S. concepts.

2 Ages 65-74.




>61.3

j 65.0

Chart 15.

Age Structure of Labor Force Participation Rates, 1973

Percent of Population
in Labor Force
100

0

Teen­
agers

100

20-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

Age

55-59

60-64

65 and
over

in 1974, and greater flexibility in working time have also
provided incentives for Swedish women to seek gainful
employment. Parenthood insurance provides that either a
mother or father may stay home up to 7 months after a
child’s birth and be reimbursed for 90 percent of his or her
pay.

20-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

Age

55-59

60-64 65 and
over

marriage and the birth and raising of children. Subse­
quently, a number of women return to work. Sometime
in the 30’s the female activity rate begins to rise again and
reaches a second maximum in the 40’s which is, except in
Sweden, lower than the first maximum. In Sweden, about
68 percent of women in the 20-24 age group are economic­
ally active; this tapers off gradually to 65 percent in the 2534 age group, then rises to a second maximum of 71.5 per­
cent in the 35-44 age bracket. Projections indicate that
Sweden is approaching a pattern of female participation by
age similar to that of men, with no drop in activity con­
nected with the birth and bringing up of children. Chart 15
shows the characteristic M-shaped curve for female partici­
pation rates in two of the three countries shown. Sin
1973, the U.S. curve has changed from the M-shape shown
in the chart. The differential in participation rates between
the age groups 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 gradually narrowed,
and by 1976, participation rates were about the same for
both age groups.
Table 14 indicates a very high rate of participation
for older Japanese workers. Almost half of the men in
Japan 65 years old and over are still working. In the United
States, only about 1 in 5 men over 65 are working, and in
Germany about 1 out of every 6. A comparatively high pro­
portion of older Japanese women are also working. The

Age stru ctu re o f p a rtic ip a tio n rates

The age structure of participation rates differs greatly
between the sexes (table 14). Male participation rates
plotted by age groups display a bell shape in all countries,
with high rates during the prime working ages and then tap­
ering off after age 50 as males enter retirement. Chart 15
shows the age structure of participation rates for three of
the countries, illustrating the bell shape. The growing im­
portance of schooling and the increasing frequency of early
retirement, voluntary or otherwise, have resulted in a trend
toward lower participation rates at both ends of the age
spectrum.
In the case of women, the above phenomena are ac­
companied by conditions relating to women’s traditional
role in society. Generally speaking, after a first maximum
which occurs between 20 and 25 years of age, a fall in
economic activity rates occurs which is attributable to



0

Teen­
agers

45

prevalence of the work ethic in Japan partly accounts for
these high participation rates of older workers. Also, social
security benefits are very small and pensions are low or
nonexistent. Fifty-five is still the common retirement age
in Japan, but social security payments begin at age 60 and
lump-sum retirement payments are not enough to allow for
self-sufficiency until age 60. As a result, most workers who
are retired from their regular jobs at 55 continue at lower
paid jobs or go into self-employment out of financial ne­
cessity.
Cyclical trends in participation

In the short term, changes in participation rates can
incorporate a significant cyclical component. It is generally
assumed that the interaction between demand for and sup­
ply of labor may take two opposite forms: In the course of
a recession, dismissed workers or potential labor force en­
trants may either be inhibited from even seeking a new job
(“discouraged worker hypothesis”) or be stimulated by
sheer need to try harder for new sources of income (“addi­
tional worker hypothesis”). Econometric investigations
have usually found confirmation at the aggregate level of
the “discouraged worker hypothesis,” even though this may
only imply that the alternative hypothesis has less
weight.10
According to research by Dernburg and Strand, the
degree to which the two effects govern labor force partici­
pation depends upon the stage of the business cycle.11 An
initial decline in employment from a cyclical peak results
in large-scale discouragement and withdrawal from the
labor force. Subsequent declines in employment are met by
a smaller decline in labor force participation. As the period
of economic slack grows longer, pressure on additional
workers to enter the labor force builds up and this tends to
partially offset the discouragement effect. Because the
dominant effect is withdrawal from the labor force, the of­
ficial unemployment statistics understate the magnitude of
the economic loss during periods of economic slack.12
The United States and Sweden are the only countries
studied which regularly collect data on discouraged workers.
In the United States, changes in the number of such work­
ers have been consistent with cyclical changes in the de­
mand for labor. Both the unemployment rate and the num­
ber of discouraged workers moved downward, though in
differing degrees, from 1967 to 1969, when unemployment
declined 5 percent and discouraged workers declined 22
percent; both series rose substantially from 1969 to 1971,
10 See Jacob Mincer, “Labor Force Participation and Unemploy­
ment: a Review of Recent Evidence,” in R. A. Gordon and M. S.
Gordon eds., Prosperity and Employment (New York, Wiley and
Sons, 1966).
11 Thomas Dernburg and Kenneth Strand, “Hidden Unemploy­
ment 1953-62: A Quantitative Analysis by Age and Sex,” American
Economic Review, March 1966, pp. 71-95.



46

when job prospects were poor; and both moved downward
again during 1972 and 1973 as the job market improved.
The drop in the U.S. labor force participation rate in 1971,
after a rise since 1964, was related to the sharp increase in
withdrawals from the labor force of discouraged workers.
The number of discouraged workers reached a recession
high of 1.2 million in the third quarter of 1975-one quarter
later than the unemployment peak—and the 1975 partici­
pation rate held steady at the 1974 level after rising in 1972
and 1973. After the peak, the number of discouraged
workers began moving downward fairly steadily through
the third quarter of 1976. However, as unemployment be­
gan to rise again, there was also an increase in the number
of discouraged workers to 1 million in the final quarter of
1976.
In Sweden, economic activity slowed down in 196768, and both unemployment and the number of discouraged
workers reached decade highs. The labor force participation
rate dipped sharply in 1967. one of the few years in which
female economic activity declined. In 1968, the participa­
tion rate rose, possibly evidencing the “additional worker
hypothesis.” In 1970-71, when unemployment moved up­
ward sharply, the number of discouraged workers actually
fell slightly and continued downward in 1972; participation
rates continued to rise. This trend may have been related
to the rapid expansion in government training and job crea­
tion programs in the early 1970’s which probably absorbed
many discouraged workers. During the international re­
cession of 1974-75, Swedish unemployment remained low,
and participation rates for women rose sharply, while the
rates for men held steady. In contrast, male participation
rates declined in all the other countries during the recession.
The long-term trend in Italy is one of slowly declin­
ing overall participation rates. Cyclical trends,superimposed
upon this long-term trend, have occasionally caused sharper
than usual declines in participation. In 1963-66, when the
Italian economy turned downward and unemployment
rose, participation rates dipped sharply. As economic activity
moved upward, activity rates held steady in 1967 and de­
clined only slightly until 1972 when another sharp drop
occurred. The latter drop was a lagged reaction to the
lengthy recession which began in early 1970. Whereas in
previous cycles the easing of the labor market was accom­
panied by a rapid decline in participation rates, the rates re­
mained stable in the recession which began in 1974.
Ibid. Dernburg and Strand constructed a “potential” labor
force series for the United States which they used to recalculate the
unemployment rate including net cyclical withdrawals from the
labor force. Thus, for November 1962, when the official seasonally
adjusted unemployment rate was 5.8 percent, they calculated a
“manpower gap” unemployment rate of between 9.5 and 10.3 per­
cent. Professor Alfred Telia of Georgetown University has also done
work in this area. See “The Relation of Labor Force to Employ­
ment,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, April 1974, pp. 45469.
12

crease in participation rates in 1973 since 15-year-olds had
a lower than average level of labor force activity.
Employment-population ratios also were sensitive to
cyclical fluctuations, but did not always move in the same
direction as participation rates. For example, in 1975, U.S.,
Canadian, Australian, Italian, and British participation rates
held steady or rose while employment-population ratios
declined. According to one hypothesis, this behavior in the
United States was attributable to the combination of infla­
tion and unemployment which put severe financial pressure
on many families and induced an unusually large number of
family members to seek jobs.

The data for Germany and Great Britain also sug­
gest that participation rates tend to react, with certain
lags, to changes in the demand for labor. Participation
rates declined throughout most of the 1960-76 period in
Germany, but the sharpest drops occurred in 1967 and
1974, both years of recession for the economy. In Great
Britain, participation rates for 1960-66 held quite steadily
at about 61 percent, but then fell off to 59 percent by
1971 as unemployment rose. One noncyclical influence
which should be mentioned was the raising of the British
school-leaving age from 15 to 16 in 1973. Removal of the
15-year-olds from the 1973 data explains some of the in­




47

C h ap ter 5. Factors C o n trib u tin g to D ifferences in U n e m p lo y m e n t Levels

portance. To present such a quantitative appraisal would
require a study in considerable depth. Comparatively low
unemployment rates in Western Europe and Japan cannot
be attributed solely to any one of the topics discussed be­
low. They are rather the cumulative effect of a number of
factors which in combination have gradually enabled some
national economies to provide jobs for almost all persons
seeking work.

Unemployment rates in the United States have tended
to be appreciably higher than in most other industrial coun­
tries, even after adjustments are made to account for differ­
ences in definitions and survey methods. Although U.S. un­
employment reached a 16-year low of 3.5 percent in 1969,
it was still well above the rates in Western Europe and
Japan. Explanations for the differences may be sought in
demographic, economic, legal, and social factors.
This chapter examines some of the factors which may
contribute to differences in unemployment levels among
the major industrial countries. Emphasis is placed on those
factors which help to explain the relatively high unemploy­
ment rates in the United States. The discussion updates and
expands upon the pioneering 1962 study by Myers and
Chandler prepared for the President’s Committee to Ap­
praise Employment and Unemployment Statistics.1 It will
be noted that, in many ways, the countries studied are
more alike today than they were in the early 1960’s. Never­
theless, significant differences do remain which help to ex­
plain international differences in unemployment rates.
Consideration is given first to demographic factors
such as the growth and composition of the labor force. At­
tention is also given to cyclical labor migrations, to season­
ality, to income maintenance arrangements, to labor market
programs, and to differences in the employment situation
for young people. Finally, noneconomic factors such as
legal and social restraints against layoffs are considered.
The chapter is by no means a complete survey of all
the factors that influence comparative levels of unemploy­
ment rates. Such complex questions as the form of economic
organization (i.e., free enterprise, socialism, etc.) and the
level of wages in relation to the supply of, and demand for,
labor have been deliberately excluded. Similarly, the fiscal
and monetary policies chosen by the various governments
are not taken into consideration. Differences in occupa­
tional, industrial, and regional supply-demand imbalances
(i.e., structural unemployment) have also been excluded.
Treatment of such topics is beyond the scope of this report.
However, it should be noted that some of these excluded
topics could be very significant factors in explaining differ­
ences in unemployment levels.
It is fairly easy to identify many of the principal
causes contributing to differences in unemployment rates,
but it is much more difficult to appraise their relative im­

Labor force growth

It is commonly suggested that the rapid growth of the
labor force in the United States has greatly increased the
difficulty of maintaining full employment. Growth of the
U.S. civilian labor force alone called for about 25 million
new jobs between 1959 and 1976 if the unemployment rate
were not to rise above the 1959 level of 5.5 percent. The
economy generated 23 million new jobs, however, and the
unemployment rate rose to 7.7 percent in 1976. Of course,
some of this shortfall is attributable to cyclical factors.2
The lower unemployment rates of the European countries
and Japan from 1960 onward were achieved under condi­
tions of slow growth or decline of the labor force. Indeed,
it is often overlooked that these countries created relatively
fewer net new jobs than did the countries with high un­
employment rates-the United States and Canada.
The Canadian labor force grew at an annual rate of
3.2 percent, higher than the rate of increase in any other
country (table 15). Australian work force growth, at 2.4
percent annually since 1964, was also rapid. The rate of
growth of the U.S. labor force, at 2 percent, was much
higher than that for the European countries and Japan. The
labor force grew at annual rates of 1 percent or less in
France, Great Britain, and Sweden. In Germany, the labor
force decreased slowly but would have declined faster if
not for the rapid influx of foreign workers since 1960.
The labor force excluding foreign workers in Germany
declined by 7 percent between 1960 and 1975, while the
number of foreign workers rose about sevenfold. Italy’s
work force declined by 0.4 percent a year. These very low
rates of labor force increase in European countries may
have aided in maintaining low levels of unemployment. In
fact, labor shortages developed during the 1960’s in several

2 Real gross national product rose by 6 percent over the preced­
1 President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemploy­ ing year in 1959 and by 6.1 percent in 1976; both years were pre­
ment Statistics, Measuring Employ men ten d Unemployment, appen­ ceded by economic downturns. However, the 1974-75 recession was
dix A (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962). steeper and longer lasting than the 1957-58 downturn.




48

such factors as trends toward longer years of schooling,
early retirement, and changing attitudes toward the role
of women. In the United States, a dramatic increase in par­
ticipation rates for women occurred in the 1960-76 period.
In contrast, Japan, Germany, and Italy had declining female
activity rates. (See chapter 4.)

Table 15. Growth rates of population, labor force, and
employment, 1960-76

Country

United States . . .
Canada ...................
Australia 1 . . . . .
Japan ...................
F ra n c e ...................
Germany .............
Great Britain . . .
I t a l y ......................
Sweden . . . . . .

Civilian
working-age
population
1.7
2.4

2.0
1.7

Civilian
labor
force

2.0
3.2
2. 4
1.3

Employment

1.9
3.1

Labor force composition

2.2
1.2

.7
.3

1.1
-.1
.2

-.2
.1

.8

- .4

- .4

.7

.8

.8

1.2

.9

11964-76.
2 1961-76.
NOTE: Percent changes computed from the least squares trend
of the logarithms of the index numbers.

countries—notably Germany and Japan—as the supply of
labor could not keep up with demand.
Population growth and trends in participation rates
are factors which underlie the different trends in the labor
force among the major industrial countries. Since 1960, the
civilian population of working age has grown fastest in
Canada, followed by Australia, the United States, Japan,
and France (table 15). Population growth was under 1 per­
cent a year in Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Sweden.
Labor force participation rates have been rising in the
United States, Australia, Canada, and Sweden, while re­
maining steady in Great Britain and declining in the other
countries. (See chapter 4.)
The relatively rapid growth in working-age population
and rising participation rates led to the relatively high rates
of labor force growth in the United States, Australia, and
Canada. Germany, Great Britain, and Italy had low rates of
population growth and declining or steady participation
rates; in these countries, the labor force grew very slowly or
declined. For Japan, population growth was fairly strong
but labor force growth was held down by a sharp drop in
participation rates.
A major reason for the rapid increase in the U.S.
working-age population and labor force compared to many
European countries was this country’s unusually high binh
rate in the early postwar years. These children began enter­
ing the labor force in the latter 1960’s. Thus, in 1967, some
3.8 million Americans turned 21, nearly 1 million more
than a year earlier. The number reaching 21 remained close
to 3.8 million until 1975 and then began to push above 4
million. In most other industrial countries, in contrast, the
ravages of World War II precluded any prompt postwar re­
turn to normal family life. Consequently, there were no
comparable postwar baby booms, and there was no com­
parable stream of young persons pouring into the work
force.
Underlying long-term trends in participation rates are




49

Differences in the composition of the labor force
among the major industrial countries are important in an
investigation of why international unemployment rates
differ, since certain groups have been more prone to unem­
ployment than others. Hence, if a country has a higher pro­
portion of its labor force in such groups, its overall unem­
ployment rate should tend to be higher. Differences in com­
position by sex, age, economic sector, and economic status
(i.e.., self-employed, wage earner, or unpaid family worker)
are examined here.
Age and sex composition. In general, women enter and
leave the work force more frequently than adult men and
women and younger workers change jobs more frequently,
encountering more spells of unemployment in the course of
these transitions than workers with more permanent job
attachments. Another factor that tends to increase the un­
employment rate of married women is the migration of
families who generally move where the husband’s job
opportunities are better.3 Also, women and younger workers
are more vulnerable to layoffs than adult men, because on
average they do not have as many years of work experience.
On the other hand, women and teenagers tend to work in
occupations and industries which are not subject to sharp
cyclical fluctuations. Women, for example, are more
likely to be employed in white-collar jobs and in service
industries where unemployment fluctuates less over the
business cycle. In addition, the slower rate of entry of
women and teenagers into the labor force during a recession
narrows the age and sex differential in the U.S. unemploy­
ment rate.
In chapter 3 comparative data were presented on
unemployment by age and sex. These figures indicated that
women in most countries have higher unemployment rates
than men. Female rates are about the same as male rates
only in Great Britain and Japan. Teenagers have relatively
high jobless rates in all countries. Thus, it is relevant to con­
sider the trends in the proportion of the labor force
accounted for by women and teenagers.
A significant increase in the proportion of women
and teenagers in the labor force has been singled out as one
of the reasons for the worsening unemployment situation
3 In the United States in 1970, married women age 25 to 34 who
had moved to a different county within the year had an unemploy­
ment rate of 11 percent, compared to 5 percent for nonmigrants.
Among married men of the same age group, the rates were 4.8 per­
cent and 2.1 percent, respectively.

Table 16.

Women and teenagers in the labor force, 1 9 6 0 ,1 9 7 1 ,1 9 7 5 , and 1976
Women 1

Country

As percent of labor force
1971

United States . .
Canada ................
Australia.............
Japan ................
France ................
Germany . . . .
Great Britain . .
I t a l y ...................
S w e d e n .............

33

3 27
4 29
40
5 36
38
34
31
735

1975

1976

38
34
32
39
38
36
37
28
40

40
37
35
37
38
38
39
30
43

Teenagers2
Labor force
growth rate,
1960-76
1960

41
37
35
37
39
38
39
30
43

1960

3.1
5.2
44.1

1971

7

9

3 9

10
12

4 14

.6

10
5 8
11
7 11
12
7 9

5 1.7
- .1
1.3
- .4

72.2

1 All working ages.
2 16- to 19-year-olds in the United States, France, and Swe­
den; 15- to 19-year-olds in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan;
14- to 19-year-olds in Italy. Data for Great Britain are for 15- to
19-year-olds in 1960 and 1971 and 16- to 19-year-olds in 1975
and 1976.

5

6
8
9

8
6

1975

1976

10
12
12

10
11
12

3
5

3
(6 )
9

8
8

8

7

(6 )

6

6

Labor force
growth rate,
1960-76
3.9
4.1
4 .7
“ 6.7
5~ 1 .6
~ 1.2
7~ 1.7
8- 4 .5
7“ 1 .5

4

1965 for proportion; 1965-76 for growth rate.
51963 for proportion; 1963-75 or -76 for growth rate.
°N o t available.
71961 for proportion; 1961-76 for growth rate.
*1960-75.

NOTE: Data have been adjusted to U.S. concepts. Growth
rates (percent per year) based on compound rate of change.

3 Estimate.

in the United States in the 1970’s. Women grew from onethird of the U.S. labor force in 1960 to 41 percent in 1976,
while 16- to 19-year-olds increased their share from 7 to 10
percent. The U.S. economy has not fully absorbed these
groups, and unemployment rates for women and teenagers
have worsened compared with the national average. For ex­
ample, the overall unemployment rate was about 5.6 per­
cent in both 1960 and 1974; female unemployment was
5.9 percent in 1960 and 6.7 percent in 1974; teenage un­
employment was 14.7 percent and 18.2 percent, respec­
tively. In contrast, the jobless rate for males 20 years of
age and over dropped from 4.7 percent to 3.8 percent over
the same period.
Table 16 shows that the United States has had a
comparatively large increase in the female work force dur­
ing the period since 1960. Only Canada and Australia
(1965-76) have had more rapid increases. In all of these
countries, the strong expansion of the service sector, with
jobs traditionally held by women, had an important effect.
Other underlying factors are noted in chapter 4. In 1976,
Sweden, which has done much to encourage women to
work, had the highest proportion of women in its labor
force. The United States ranked second, followed closely
by France, Germany, and Great Britain. Italy had, by far,
the lowest proportion of women. These rankings differed
markedly from the situation in 1960, when five of the nine
countries had higher proportions of women in the work
force than the United States. At that time, Japan ranked
first, and Germany was second. Canada ranked last, with
women constituting only about one-quarter of the labor
force.
Thus, the United States has had a relatively high and
growing proportion of women in the labor force. Sweden
has maintained low overall unemployment rates even with
a large and growing female component. Female unemploy­
ment rates in Sweden, although higher than male rates, are



As percent of labor force

quite low when compared with most of the other countries.
Italy has had both a low level and a declining trend in the
female labor force. This has probably helped to keep unem­
ployment down, since female unemployment rates have
been 50 to 60 percent higher than the male rates in recent
years. France and Germany had significantly higher propor­
tions of women in their labor forces in 1960 than the United
States, but had much lower levels of unemployment com­
pared with the United States.
Between 1960 and 1970, the United States had the
fastest growth in the teenage labor force; for the entire
1960-76 period, Canada had the sharpest increase because
of extremely rapid growth in the 1970’s. In all of the
European countries and Japan, the teenage labor force de­
clined between 1960 and 1976 (table 16).
In 1976, teenagers constituted 10 percent of the labor
force in the United States; this proportion was exceeded
only in Australia and Canada (table 16).4 Japan, France,
and Sweden have very low proportions of teenagers in the
labor force (3 to 6 percent) and this has helped to keep
overall unemployment down in those countries. However,
in 1960 all the other countries had higher proportions of
teenagers in their labor force than the United States and
were able to maintain much lower overall levels of unem­
ployment, except for Canada.
Canada and the United States were the only coun­
tries where the proportion of teenagers in the labor force
It should be noted that the proportion of teenagers in the labor
force may be affected by the lower age limit used in defining teen­
agers (footnote 2, table 16). These age limits have been adapted to
the age at which compulsory schooling ends, which varies from age
14 to 16. If 15-year-olds were excluded from the Australian and
Canadian labor forces, for example, the proportion of teenagers
would probably be lowered closer to the level in the United States,
where teenagers comprise persons age 16 to 19.
50

rose between 1960 and 1975. Basically, there are two
reasons for the increases in the teenage labor forces in both
countries. As mentioned earlier, the sharp increase in birth
rates in the 1950’s resulted in rapid growth of the teenage
population beginning in the second half of the 1960’s.
Second, participation rates of young persons have risen sig­
nificantly. In most of the other countries studied, birth
rates did not rise significantly in the 1950’s and participa­
tion rates have generally fallen for teenagers with the spread
of higher education.
On balance, the overall effect of the demographic
composition of the U.S. labor force may be to marginally
increase its aggregate unemployment rate compared with
some other countries. The high and growing proportion of
both women and teenagers in the U.S. labor force has had
an upward influence on unemployment rates. This has also
been the case in Canada. In most of the other countries the
female and teenage components of the work force are not
as large and have either declined or increased less rapidly.

Japan ................... ...
..........................
F ra n c e ............................................ .........................
Germany ...................... ... . . . . . ....................
Great Britain ................................ ......................
Italy . . . . . .........................................................
Sweden .........................................




1960
8.5
13.3

11.9
10.9
7.0

2.6
15.4

6.2

These figures indicate that Italy, Japan, and France
had the highest proportions of workers generally not sus­
ceptible to being counted as unemployed. Great Britain and
the United States had the lowest proportions, However, it
should be noted that the countries with the highest propor­
tions experienced a high rate of displacement from the agri­
cultural sector in the period under review and have therefore
had the added problem of providing other jobs for the dis­
placed farm workers.
The following tabulation shows the 1974 proportion
of employment made up by wage and salary earners in the
nine countries:
United S ta te s ..................
Canada...................
Australia............................................
Japan .............................................................
F ra n c e ..............................................................
Germany .....................................................................
Great B r it a i n ............................................
I t a l y ..................................
Sweden ...............................................................................................

Industry and economic status. The industrial composition
of the labor force and the economic status of workers (i.e.,
as self-employed, wage earner, or unpaid family worker) are
factors of interest since workers in certain sectors of the
economy and workers of wage earner status are more often
unemployed than others.
In many foreign countries—Japan and Italy are the
best examples—small, family-owned businesses are found
more frequently than in this country. The farms, small
factories, and commercial establishments owned and oper­
ated by family members have provided jobs and a substan­
tial measure of protection from unemployment for a large
segment of the labor force. In such enterprises unemploy­
ment is virtually nonexistent, though substantial under­
employment and shrinkage of income may occur from time
to time. Furthermore, in countries where this form of
business organization plays a significant role, there is more
chance that a family member who loses his wage or salary
job will return to working in the family business and thus
not be counted as unemployed. In the United States, on
the other hand, the economies of scale that can be realized
in a large and fairly homogeneous sales market have been
factors encouraging a consolidation of business enterprises,
so that self-employment and family operations occur less
frequently and the risk of unemployment is increased.
Unemployment is much less frequently associated
wit.li agriculture than with industry, partly because agricul­
ture is less susceptible to cyclical change, but chiefly be­
cause a. high proportion of workers in agriculture are selfemployed or unpaid family workers, The following tabula­
tion shows the proportion of the employed population en­
gaged in agriculture in 1960 and 1976:
United States . . . . . . . . . . ................... .
........
Australia

29.5
22.4
13.6
4.1
32.6

90.4
88.7
85.8
69.3
80.6
83.9
92.0
71.5
91.0

The United States has a higher proportion of wage
and salary workers than all the other countries except Great
Britain and Sweden. The small proportion of agricultural
workers discussed above helps to explain this, but other
factors such as the prevalence of large-scale operations in
the United States play a role. Japan, Italy, and France had
much lower proportions of wage and salary workers than
the other countries and, therefore, had a significant group
of workers who might be underemployed but who are sel­
dom totally unemployed. Some industrial countries, not­
ably Sweden, have been able to maintain very low rates of
unemployment despite a realtively high proportion of wage
and salary workers.
Labor migration

The volume of migration in the Western European
countries has tended to fluctuate with the economic situa­
tion, Foreign nationals have flowed into the Northern
European countries when demand is high and have left
when it is low, without seriously affecting unemployment
levels in the host country. This flexibility of labor supply,
particularly in France, Germany, and Switzerland, has acted
as a cyclical shock absorber, helping to keep unemployment
rates low during recessions, although in 1974-75 the out­
flow was not as great as in past recessions. These cyclical
flows of “guestworkers” have no precise counterpart in the
United States and are one of the factors explaining why un­
employment rates in some Western European countries
have been lower than in this country.

1976
3.9
5.9
6,2

51

Massive migratory movements of workers within
Europe have occurred within the past two decades. In con­
trast to the involuntary and permanent migration which
marked the immediate postwar decade, European migration
since 1955 has been mostly voluntary and temporary. The
first impetus to such migrations was the formation of the
European Community (EC) in 1957 and its rules permitting
the free movement of labor across the borders of member
states. Subsequently, rapid economic growth in the Northern
European countries attracted many migrant workers from
outside the EC, mainly from the poorer Mediterranean
countries such as Turkey, Greece, and Spain. In the early
1960’s, the influx of migrants became very large as North­
ern Europe’s demand for labor far outstripped the domestic
supply.
Workers migrating from one EC country to another
are assured equal social protection with nationals, reception
facilities covering training and linguistic studies, and hous­
ing, as well as an increasing participation in the political and
socioeconomic life of the host country. Migrants from out­
side the EC, having no official status under Community
law, enter the Community under conditions set forth in bi­
lateral agreements between member states and the countries
of origin. These agreements guarantee legal migrants some
social security protection in the Community, but usually
less than local citizens receive.
The flow of migrant labor from Mediterranean coun­
tries to the north increased steadily until the 1966-67 re­
cession, when many foreign workers were obliged to return
home because of growing unemployment in Northern Eu­
rope. After the recession, the movement of foreign workers
to the north resumed.
Measures to limit considerably, or stop, the influx of
migrants by the labor-receiving countries led to a diminution

of the cyclical outflow of migrants in the 1974-75 recession.
Many foreign workers remained in the host countries be­
cause they feared they would not be able to reenter under
the newly restrictive immigration policies. Another factor
was that increased unemployment benefits in industrial­
ized countries exceeded any wage the migrants could hope
to receive at home. This growing tendency for unemployed
foreign workers to remain in the Northern European coun­
tries contributed to the sharp rise in unemployment rates
recorded in most of these countries during the recent re­
cession. This contrasts with the situation in the European
recession of 1966-67, when there was a sharp outflow of
foreign workers.5 Tabic 17 shows the number of foreign
workers employed and unemployed in Germany over the
period since 1960. Unemployment of foreign workers rose
from 0.3 to 1.5 percent from 1966 to 1967, but was much
higher in the 1974-75 recession, reaching a peak of 6.9 per­
cent in 1975. The annual figures in the table conceal the
fact that between mid-1966 and early 1968, over 30 per­
cent of the foreign labor force left the country. Between
mid-1973 and mid-1974 the drop was only 12 percent, but
as the recession continued foreign workers left in increasing
numbers.
Italy was a major labor-exporting country during the
1960’s and early 1970’s. However, the 1974-75 recession
caused many Italians to return home, and Italy had a posi­
tive migratory balance. For example, in 1974 some 85,000
workers left Italy for Germany, while 120,000 returned
home from that country. Even with this return flow, there
were still about 1 million Italians working abroad in 1975,
most of them in Germany, Switzerland, and France.
Almost all Northern European countries have placed
bans on new immigration. These restrictions were related to
the social and political problems caused by migration as
well as the 1973 energy crisis and subsequent recession.
With rules of the European Community providing for a free
flow of workers from one member country to another, ef­
forts to hold down the flow of migrants are aimed at coun­
tries that do not belong to the group of nine nations. About
three-quarters of the foreign workers in European Com­
munity countries are from outside the Community. Ger­
many banned recruitment of foreign labor from outside the
Common Market in November 1973; Belgium and Fiance
followed with bans in 1974. In the Scandinavian countries,
there is a partial ban against migratory flows from outside
the free Nordic market. In Switzerland, a policy of increas­
ing restriction on the entry of foreign workers began well
before the recent recession.
Uniform statistics on migrant workers in Western
Europe are not available, chiefly because nearly all coun­
tries use different methods of classifying foreign workers,
Some countries include seasonal workers in their report­
ing, while others do not. Also, h is difficult to obtain

Table 17. Foreign workers in Germ any, 1960 and 1965-76
Employed
foreign workers
Year

1960 ................
1965 ................
1966 ................
1967 ................
1968 ................
1969 ................
1970 ................
1 9 7 1 ................
1972 ................
1973 ................
1974 ................
1975 ................
1976 (June) . .

Unemployed
foreign workers 1

Percent of
Number
Percent of
Number
foreign
(thousands) labor force (thousands)
labor force
281
1,119
1,243
1,014
1,019
1,366
1,807
2,128
2,285
2,595
2,446
2,034
1,937

1.1

(2 )

(2 )

4.3
4.7
3.9
4.0
5.3
6.9

2

.2

4
15
5
3
4

8.1

11

8.7
9.8
9.3
7.9
7.6

16
19
69
151
90

3

1.5
.5

.2
.2
.5
.7
.7
2.7
6.9
4.4

1 Registered unemployed.
2 Not available.

Hauptergebnisse der Arbeits-und Sozialstatistik

SOURCE:
(Bonn, Der Bundesminister fur Arbeit und Soziaiordnung, various
issues).




5 See “Effects of Recession on Immigrant Labor,** OECD Ob­
server, June 1972, pp. 15-18,

52

Table 18.

Estimated number of foreign workers by country of immigration and emigration, 1975
Country of
France2

3,000

__
—

420,000

-

Germany 3

2,000

-

78,000

-

8,000

-

5,000

212,000

85,000
60,000
3,000
30,000

ro

A lg eria ................................
A u stria ......................... ... .
Finland .............................
Greece .......................................
Italy . . . . . .......................
Morocco . . . . . . . . . .
Portuqal ...................................
S p ain ...........................................
Tunisia .......................................
T u rk e y ...................
Yugoslavia . . . . . . . .
Other ................................

Belgium 1

Austria

o
o
o

Country 0? ' ' ' ^ ™ mi9ration
emigration

210,000

318,000
18,000
70,000
132,000
15,000
582,000
436,000
328,000

1

Nether­
lands

_
-

Sweden

1

-

200

_
21,000

103,000

2,000
10,000

Switzer­
land4

8,000

-

United
Kingdom 1
500

-

2,500
500

281,000

2,500
56,500

1,000
2,000
200

4,000
72,000

4,000
15,500

104,000

4,000
23,000
60,000

16,000
24,000
135,000

1,500
3,500
690,000

-

1,000

21,000

3,000
76,000

165,000
430,000
250,000
90,000
35,000
60,000
235,000

T o ta l................................

185,000

278,000

1,900,000

2,171,000

216,000

204,000

553,000

775,000

Percent of labor force . .

6.1

7.1

8.7

8.4

4.6

5.0

18.8

3.1

—

10,000

26,200
136,000

1 Estimates for 1974.
2 Excludes 124,000 seasonal workers.
3 Data for September 1975, includes
workers.

unemployed

1

28,000
5,000
18,000

1,000
38,000

10,000

-

-

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel­
opment, SOPEMI (Continuous Reporting System on Migration),
1976 report.

foreign

4 Excludes 86,000 seasonal workers and 85,000 foreign workers
who commute daily across international borders.

figures on the number of daily international commuters
who work in France, for example, but actually live in
Spain or Belgium. The free movement of Common Market
migrants into member states makes it difficult to get an
accurate count of border crossings. Further problems in
measuring the number of foreign workers in Western
European countries are created by illegal immigration
and by tourists who enter a country and stay to take
temporary employment.
Thus, the number of migrant workers currently in
the Western European countries is not accurately known.
However, an idea of the magnitude involved can be gained
from statistics from a continuous reporting system set up
by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and De­
velopment (OECD) in 1973.6 Table 18 presents data from
the OECD system by country of immigration and emigra­
tion in 1975. The table shows that foreign workers rep­
resent about 19 percent of the Swiss labor force; 8 to 9 per­
cent of the German and French work forces; about 6 to 7
percent in Austria and Belgium; 4 to 5 percent in the
Netherlands and Sweden; and 3 percent in the United King­
dom. Prior to the recession, foreign workers made up
greater proportions of the labor force-25 percent in
Switzerland and around 10 percent in Germany and France.
The figures in table 18 include participants in the free
movement of labor within the European Community coun­
tries.
As the term “guestworker” implies, the host coun­
tries of Western Europe have tended to regard the foreign
workers as transient. Legal frameworks discourage migrants

from permanently settling in these countries.7 Also, with
some exceptions, the migrants are not looking for a new
home. They want jobs and money which they can send
home or take with them when they leave after a few years.
The “guestworker” phenomenon of these countries has no
exact counterpart in the United States, Australia, Canada,
Sweden, and Great Britain. These immigrant-receiving
countries have traditionally taken the position that those
who arrive from abroad to work may also become citizens;
the legally arriving foreign worker, in short, has usually
been granted immigrant status. These countries do not de­
fine their foreign populations as “migrants” or “guestworkers” but as “immigrants.”
There has been a growing influx of illegal migrants
in Western European countries since the virtual halt in
“guestworker” hiring instituted during the 1974-75 reces­
sion. Such persons either cross international borders il­
legally or enter legally as visitors or students and remain
to work without a permit. The European Community has
estimated that there are about 600,000 illegal aliens work­
ing in member countries.8 German government authorities
estimate that about 200,000 illegal foreign nationals are
working in that country.9 In 1976, Germany passed a law
providing for prison terms and larger fines for the illegal
7
For example, in many countries there are work permits tying
workers to certain jobs, other restrictions on job mobility, require­
ments for renewal of work and residence permits, and rules inhibit­
ing the reunion of families.
8“Illegal Immigrants,” The Economist, Nov. 13, 1976, p. 68.
9 Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany (Washington,
D.C.), What’s New in Labor and Social Policy? January/February
1976, pp. 12-14.

6 See 4Up-To-Date Information on Migration through ‘SOPEMI,’ ”
OECD Observer, February 1974, pp. 3940.



53

recruitment and employment of foreign workers. In addi­
tion, the Commission of the European Communities has
before it a proposal for a harmonized policy on illegal
immigration.
In the United States, illegal aliens have also become
a growing problem. Immigration officials place the number
of illegals at between 7 and 12 million persons (including
family members).10 A Cabinet-level Presidential committee
reported in 1976 that illegal aliens have become so numer­
ous that those apprehended annually are almost double the
number of foreign citizens entering the United States
legally.11

Table 19. Construction industry: Range of indexes of
employment, 1965 and 1975
(Average employment for each year = 100)
1965
Quarterly

Monthly

Quarterly

Monthly

United States . .
Australia.............
Canada ................
F ra n c e ................
Germany . . . .
Great Britain . .
Italy . . . . . . .
S w e d e n .............

Seasonality

87-109
98-101
83-114
98-101
94-104
98-102
99-101
91-107

85-111
(1 )
81-116
(1 )
92-104
97-103
(1 )
91-107

94-106
97-103

92-107
(1 )

8 6 -111

8 6 -112
(1 )

97-102
96-102
99-101
99-101
98-102

93-103
98-101
(1 )
95-107

1 Not available.

Unemployment statistics, like many other economic
series, reflect in part a regularly recurring seasonal move­
ment which can be estimated on the basis of past experience.
Seasonal adjustment procedures make allowances for
changes in average climatic conditions and institutional
arrangements during the year such as the influx of young
persons into the labor market at the end of the school term.
Seasonality plays a more important role in some
countries than in others. For instance, the unusually long
and severe winters in Canada cause higher average levels of
unemployment. One would also expect very large seasonal
swings related to the winter in Sweden, but this has been
mitigated as a result of massive government programs to
stimulate winter employment. In the United States, seasonal
variations explain about 90 percent of the month-to-month
variance in the unemployment figures, on average, over the
year. In construction alone, one study estimated that
seasonal layoffs represented about 38 percent of all unem­
ployment.12
From its low point in February or March to its peak
in August, the U.S. contract construction industry charac­
teristically has a massive upswing in employment. The mag­
nitude of these seasonal swings is compared with other
countries in table 19. This table indicates that the United
States and Canada have the sharpest seasonal changes in
construction employment. Seasonal fluctuations were the
mildest in Italy and were also quite small in France, Great
Britain, and Australia. Germany and Sweden were in the
middle range.
European efforts to better utilize manpower during

NOTE: Quarterly data are 3-month averages except for Aus­
tralia (February, May, August, and November), France (March,
June, September, and December), and Italy (January, April, July,
and October).

the winter months have helped to hold down seasonal un­
employment in construction, and Canada has waged an
aggressive campaign to reduce seasonality in construction.
Similar goals were an objective of the National Commission
on Construction Labor, created in the United States in
1969. The commission has explored ways to stabilize labor
supplies, partly by encouraging the continuance of con­
struction projects during the winter months.
Low temperatures, frozen ground, snow, rain, and
mud impede outdoor construction during the winter. Over
the years, continuing technological advances have made it
possible to overcome many of these obstacles. American
scientists and engineers have developed materials and tech­
niques to permit winter construction. Such methods, al­
though widely known, are not widely used. Canada, with
winter temperatures well below freezing, has made great
strides in all types of construction work through the
year.13 During the past decade, Canada has made wide use
of polyethylene wind barriers, interior heating units, coldresistant concrete, and other materials which allow for
year-round building. Experience throughout Europe—par­
ticularly in Scandinavia—confirms the technical feasibility
of construction in extreme cold.14
An impediment to increased winter construction in
the United States is the additional cost. Special protective
shelter and protective clothing for workers may have to be
provided. But when the difficulties and costs of winter
operation are weighed against the costs of halting opera­
tions, the balance is often in favor of winter construction

10 Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., “Mexican Workers in the United States
Labor Market: A Contemporary Dilemma,” International Labour
Review, November 1975, p. 352.
11 Immigration: Need to Reassess U.S. Policy, Departments of
Justice and State: report to the Congress, 1976. Also, see “Illegal
Alien Study Urges Rethinking on Immigration,” The Washington
Post, Jan. 9, 1977, p. 1.
12Employment and Training Report o f the President, 1976, p.
62. See also Robert J. Myers and Sol Swerdloff, “Seasonality and
Construction,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1967, p. 1.




1975

Country

13 See Economic Council of Canada, Manpower in Construction
(Ottawa, 1975) and Toward More Stable Growth in Construction
(Ottawa, 1974).
Testimony of James J, Reynolds, Under Secretary of Labor, on
“Seasonal Unemployment in the Construction Industry,” Hearings
before the Select Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Ed­
ucation and Labor, House of Representatives, 90th Congress, Second
Session, on HR 15990, July 15, 1968, p.5
14 <

54

The cost savings to the economy become particularly not­
able when the direct and indirect savings in reduced un­
employment are considered. The Department of Labor has
estimated that up to a 7-percent increase in winter con­
struction costs will be offset by a decrease in unemploy­
ment insurance outlays.15

an important stabilization potential in the industrial con­
struction sector. Thus, the governments of these countries
can exercise a great deal of control over seasonal fluctua­
tions through the timing of construction projects.
The results of seasonal stabilization measures have
been fairly impressive. In Sweden, fluctuations in employ­
ment in the controlled building sector have narrowed con­
siderably. Seasonal stabilization programs in Germany have
virtually abolished mass dismissals by medium- and large­
sized firms. Subsidies for winter housing construction in
Canada have virtually eliminated seasonality in homebuilding.
The presence of a large number of foreign workers in
the construction labor force of many European countries
offers another solution to seasonality in the host country.
In Austria, France, and Switzerland, such workers are
issued temporary work permits which require them to re­
turn home before the Christmas season. New temporary
permits are then issued the following spring. This policy
exports the problem of seasonal unemployment to the
workers’ country of origin.

Experience in other countries. Other industrialized coun­

tries began working on the diminution of seasonality of
construction employment sooner than the United States.
These steps have been particularly pronounced since the
end of World War II. Two major weapons against winter
unemployment have been used by foreign policy makers:
compensatory employment and compensatory income
policies.16 Compensatory income policies will be dis­
cussed in the section on income maintenance measures.
Compensatory employment policies attempt to re­
duce seasonal unemployment in construction through pro­
gramming of regular public works projects, adoption of
emergency public works programs, stimulation of the pri­
vate construction sector, and scheduling of private proj­
ects.
Several Western European countries require all pub­
lic construction to take place either on a year-round basis
or to be concentrated during the winter months. In Ger­
many, for example, a government directive earmarks 30
percent of all Federal construction appropriations for use
between November and March. In Canada and Great Bri­
tain, administrative budget review is required to assure
that the maximum amount of winter employment is ob­
tained, and in many countries there are subsidies for winter
housing construction.
Sweden has a direct and comprehensive approach to
the full utilization of the construction labor force. Con­
struction scheduling, carried out through the issuance of
permits, is based upon detailed appraisals of local require­
ments and resources which are integrated into a national
program. Seasonal demand is leveled off in the peak season
by issuing building permits which require work to begin in
November, and often to be completed by April.
In the United States, public facilities account for
roughly one-third of total construction spending, but the
ratio is approximately one-half in Great Britain and France.
In Sweden, over 90 percent of all housing is built with state
loans. In addition, publicly owned and controlled industries
occupy an important role in the industrial structure of
many Western European countries and thereby introduce

Income maintenance arrangements

Unemployment insurance and such income main­
tenance programs as short-time payments, “bad weather”
compensation, and early retirement benefits may have an
important impact on unemployment. Unemployment bene­
fits may encourage workers to remain unemployed longer,
while the other income maintenance measures may serve
to reduce unemployment.
High levels of unemployment benefits payable for
long periods of time allow workers to remain unemployed
longer while they seek work with skill requirements and
pay similar to those of their previous jobs. A major question
has been whether high levels of unemployment benefits
discourage efforts to find work quickly, thereby prolong­
ing unemployment. Several research studies during the
last few years have addressed this question.17
Stephen T. Marston, ‘The Impact of Unemployment Insurance
on Job Search,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, No. 1,
1975 (The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.); Martin S. Feldstein, “Lowering the Permanent Rate of Unemployment,” a study
prepared for the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the
United States, Sept. 18, 1973, and “Unemployment Insurance:
Time for Reform,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1975, pp.
51-61; H.G. Grubel, D. Maki, and S. Sax, “Real and Insurance-In­
duced Unemployment in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Economics,
May 1975, p. 174-91; C. Green and J. M. Cousineau, Unemployment
in Canada: The Impact of Unemployment Insurance (Ottawa,
Economic Council of Canada, 1976); N. Swan, P. Mac Rae, and C.
Steinberg, Income Maintenance Programs: Their Effect on Labour
Supply and Aggregate Demand in the Maritimes (Ottawa, Economic
Council of Canada, 1976); P. A. Cook, G. V. Jump, C. D. Hodgins,
and C. J. Szabo, Economic Impact o f Selected Government Pro­
grams Directed Toward the Labor Market (Ottawa, Economic Coun­
cil of Canada, 1976); J. S. Cubbin and K. Foley, ‘The Extent of
Benefit-Induced Unemployment in Great Britain: Some New Evi­
dence,” Oxford Economic Papers, March 1977, pp. 128-40.
17

15Ibid., p. 6.
16For a more detailed description of these programs, see E. Jay
Howenstine, “Programs for Providing Winter Jobs in Construction,”
Monthly Labor Review, February 1971, pp. 24-32,and Compensa­
tory Employment Programmes: An International Comparison o f
Their Role in Economic Stabilization and Growth (Paris, OECD,
1969); also Jan Wittrock, Reducing Seasonal Unemployment in the
Construction Industry (Paris, OECD, 1967).



55

For example, three reports recently released under
the auspices of the Economic Council of Canada investi­
gate various aspects of the impact of unemployment insur­
ance benefits on the rate of unemployment in Canada.18
In 1971, a new unemployment insurance (UI) act took
effect in Canada, extending coverage, increasing the maxi­
mum weekly benefit and the ratio of payments to former
earnings, and establishing more liberal eligibility require­
ments. Subsequently, seasonally adjusted unemployment
rose despite an increasing number of vacancies. While the
authors of the studies generally agree that these events were
caused by the 1971 revisions, each study focuses on a par­
ticular dimension of the relationship. Green and Cousineau
were primarily concerned with the impact on the unem­
ployed segment of the labor supply. They found that the
more generous Ul benefits strengthened the incentive to
remain or become unemployed, increasing the unemploy­
ment rate from 1 to 1.5 percentage points on this account
alone. Higher Ul benefits were found to facilitate a more
selective job search than would have been possible prior to
1971. However, other factors may have also been operating,
as noted in the study by Swan, MacRae, and Steinberg.
They confined their research to one region—the Maritime
Provinces—and concentrated on the effects of UI on em­
ployment rather than unemployment. They observed in­
creasing participation rates and employment levels for
women and young people as a result of the 1971 act.
Finally, Cook, Jump, Hodgins, and Szabo limited their
study to the macroeconomic impact of the revised act.
They found the new act was clearly expansionary, since
the unemployed were assured of greater purchasing power
than they could otherwise have expected.
Some countries have instituted mechanisms to counter
the incentive to stay idle and live off unemployment checks.
Japan’s approach is to pay workers a bonus when they go
back to work, with the size of the bonus determined by
the amount of time the worker could have continued to
collect benefits. France and Great Britain try a different
approach. They scale down the size of the unemployment
benefit the longer it is paid.
In some countries, the systems of benefit payments
to workers placed on reduced workweeks provide a mech­
anism for employers to keep workers partially employed
rather than laying them off outright when economic ac­
tivity declines. Such workers continue to be classified as
employed rather than unemployed. Construction workers
receiving “bad weather” compensation are also not regarded
as unemployed. Finally, financial inducements toward early
retirement may keep a number of persons out of the labor
force who might otherwise have been looking for work.

Table 20. Unemployment insurance systems, mid-1975

Country

United States . .
Canada ................
Japan ................
F ra n c e ................
Germany . . . .
Great Britain . .
I t a l y ...................
Sweden6 . . . . .

82
89
45
60
77
80
51

100

Required
Waiting Maximum
weeks
duration
employed
period
preceding
(days) of benefits
(weeks)
unemployment
< >
2

8 out of 523
26 out of 52
13 out of 52
26 out of 156
26 out of 52
52 out of 104
20 out of 52

7
14
7

0
0
53
7
5

65
51
4 15-50
4 52-104
52
5 52
26
460-90

1 Coverage in 1974.
2 Eligibility requirements vary widely by State.
3 For minimum benefits; 20 weeks of employment in the pre­
ceding year are required for maximum benefits.
4 Maximum duration for earnings-related benefits depends upon
age of claimant with duration rising with age.
5 Figures shown relate to flat-rate benefits. For earnings-related
supplements, waiting period is 14 days and maximum duration of
benefits is 26 weeks.
6 The trade union system covers about two-thirds of the labor
force and the labor market support program covers the remainder,
including new entrants; other figures are for trade union system,

maximum durations of benefits, and benefits which typi­
cally replace at least half of former earnings of the average
worker.19 In the United States, each of the States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have separate unem­
ployment insurance laws subject to broad Federal guide­
lines. Because no uniform system exists, the most frequently
applicable regulations must be used for comparisons with
other countries. Australia is not covered here since unem­
ployment relief payments are made in that country only to
persons with low income.
Table 20 indicates that Sweden leads all countries in
coverage of the labor force, with virtually all persons covered
who complete the specified waiting period. About twothirds of the labor force is covered by a government-subsi­
dized system run by the trade unions. In addition, in 1974
Sweden established a “labor market support” system ex­
tending coverage to persons not in a trade union and to
those whose benefits with the fund have been exhausted;
also covered are all workers 16 and over who have recently
entered the labor market as well as persons reentering the
labor market.
Canada, the United States, and Great Britain all had
coverage of at least four-fifths of the labor force in 1974.20
The relatively low coverage in France, Italy, and Japan re­
flects, in part, large numbers of self-employed and unpaid
family workers, persons generally not covered by unemploy­
ment insurance.

19 Some additional information on unemployment compensation

is presented in Constance Sorrentino, “Unemployment Compensa­
tion in Eight Industrial Nations," Monthly Labor Review, July
1976, pp. 18-24.
20In 1975, coverage in the United States was increased to about
90 percent of the work force under Emergency Jobs and Unemploy­
ment Assistance Act passed in December 1974.

Unemployment insurance. An international comparison of

unemployment insurance systems indicates that most coun­
tries now have fairly broad coverage of the labor force, long
i s lbid.



Percent of
labor force
covered 1

56

To become entitled to unemployment benefits, a
worker must have worked a certain number of weeks, be
willing to return to work or to undertake training, have suf­
fered loss of employment, and, in some cases, have met a
minimum level of earnings while employed.
All countries except Sweden require a set length of
previous work to ensure that the unemployed person has
suffered a wage loss. In the United States, most States re­
quire a minimum amount of earnings in the preceding base
year rather than a minimum number of weeks of employ­
ment. In the other countries, eligibility requirements range
from 8 weeks of employment out of the preceding 52
weeks in Canada (for minimum benefits) to 52 weeks of
employment out of the preceding 104 weeks in Italy.
In Sweden, new entrants and reentrants to the labor
force may become eligible for benefits after a 3-month
period of unemployment during which they are actively
seeking work. The eligibility requirement under the trade
union system is 20 weeks of employment in the preceding
year.
A waiting period must usually be served before un­
employment benefits become payable. Canada requires the
longest waiting period- 2 weeks. The United States, Italy,
and Japan require 1 week. Less than a week is required in
Sweden (trade union system) and Great Britain (for flatrate benefits), and no waiting period is imposed in France
and Germany. Except for Japan and Sweden, a waiting per­
iod is required for each new spell of unemployment. In
Japan, a waiting period of any 7 days during the preceding
year satisfies the requirement. Technically, Sweden has one
waiting period of 5 days during the year, but a 1964
labor-management agreement provides for employer-paid
layoff benefits during this period.
In the United States, the maximum duration of bene­
fits tends to be adjusted according to the degree of unem­
ployment that prevails in the economy. In times of low un­
employment. American workers do nor fare as well as
workers in most of the other countries studied, but in times
of high unemployment, benefits are extended under Federal
programs; during the 1974-75 recession, extensions to 65
weeks of benefits were enacted.21 A similar mechanism
exists in Canada where the normal 26-week benefit period
is doubled when the national unemployment rate exceeds
4 percent, a condition met since 1967. In Japan, 1975 legis­
lation also contains provisions for extended benefit periods.
A maximum benefit period of 1 year is allowed in
Germany and Great Britain. In Italy, benefits are payable
for 26 weeks. Japan, France, and Sweden vary the maxi­
mum duration of benefits according to the age of the
claimant.
Uniquely. Japan provides a lump-sum bonus worth 30
to 70 days of unemployment benefits as an incentive for

quick reemployment. The payment is determined by the
unused portion of insurance rights.
Weekly benefits are expressed under most unemploy­
ment insurance benefit formulas as a percentage of the
worker’s recent average wages. In the United States, Canada,
France, and Germany, a benefit ceiling is imposed. In
France, the benefit is scaled down to a lower level after 3
months of unemployment. Under its regular system, France
provides flat amounts of unemployment assistance in com­
bination with the earnings-related insurance compensation
for the first 3 months of unemployment without a means
test.22 Thereafter, the assistance payments are subject to a
means test. Japan and Sweden use systems of wage classes
that produce a scale of percentages which vary inversely to
previous earnings levels. The Swedish labor market support
system provides a flat rate benefit, using a means test.
In Italy, there is an earnings-related scheme for agri­
culture, industry, and construction; only fiat amounts are
payable to all other unemployed workers. Prior to 1966,
flat amounts were also paid in Great Britain, but graduated
supplements based on previous earnings have been added to
flat benefits for the first 6 months of unemployment.
Supplementary allowances for a nonemployed spouse
and children are added in the form of flat amounts to the
basic benefit in France, Great Britain, and Japan. In France,
the supplements are provided under the unemployment
assistance program, subject to a means test. The French
worker previously earning the average manufacturing wage
would be eligible for the supplemental assistance if the
household had no other income than the worker’s unem­
ployment benefits and a family allowance. In the United
States, only 10 States and the District of Columbia provide
dependents’ supplements. In Canada, these supplements are
provided to workers whose income is below a certain level
or whose unemployment is prolonged.
Unemployment benefits may vary by level of former
income and marital status. In addition, in all of the countries
except the United States, allowances are payable to families
with children and are paid whether or not a worker is un­
employed.23
Table 21 presents a comparison of unemployment
benefits as a percent of a manufacturing worker’s average
earnings in mid-1975.24 In the United States, an unmarried
unemployed worker generally receives unemploymem bene­
fits equal to approximately 50 percent of former gross earn2 ‘2
Means-tested programs establish eligibility for benefits by
measuring individual or family resources against a standard, usually
based on subsistence needs.
2 3
Family allowances are primarily regular cash pa,, ......its made by
the government to families with children. In some countries, these
programs also include educational grants, birth grants, maternal and
child health services, and sometimes allowances for adult depen­
dents. Family allowances are payable to families thaf contain 1
child or more (Canada, Germany, Italy, and Sweden), 2 children
or more (France and Great Britain), or 3 children or more (Japan).

21 The normal U.S. benefit period varies from 26 to 36 weeks
according to State.




57

ings, although not in excess of a State-established maximum.
The maximum benefit in the majority of States is 50 per­
cent of the average State wage in insured employment.
In contrast, all of the foreign countries studied ex­
cept Great Britain provide more than 50 percent of the
average manufacturing worker’s previous earnings. France
provides the highest level of benefits, replacing 90 percent
of former earnings to workers laid off for cyclical or struc­
tural reasons, subject to official authorization. In mid1976, about 1 out of every 8 persons registered as unem­
ployed was receiving this high rate of benefit. Workers not
eligible for this system receive a much lower level of
benefits.
Canada, Japan, Germany, Sweden, and Italy replace
up to 60 percent or more of former earnings of the average
manufacturing worker. In Italy, the highest benefits go to
industrial workers, who receive two-thirds of former earn­
ings. Italian construction workers can obtain one-third of
their former wage (plus flat-rate benefits) and agricultural
workers 60 percent; persons who lose their jobs outside
agriculture, industry, and construction or who did not
satisfy eligibility requirements are entitled to very small
flat-rate benefits.
Both France (regular system) and Great Britain scale
down the benefit amount after an initial period of unem­
ployment. In France, regular benefits amount to 56 percent
of the unmarried manufacturing worker’s former wage dur­
ing the first 3 months of unemployment; thereafter, the
benefit falls to 50 percent. In Great Britain, a flat rate is
paid for the full year in addition to an earnings-related sup­
plement paid only for the first half-year; thus the 38-percent
replacement rate for the first 6 months falls to 19 percent
in the next 6 months of unemployment. Public assistance
payments, including compensation for mortgage interest
and rent subsidies, can substantially increase these ratios.
The payment of supplements for dependents in several
countries, and of family allowances in all countries except
the United States and Japan, causes the level of income sup­
port for an unemployed married person with two children
to rise relative to the U.S. level (table 21). The addition of 2
4
Foi comparison it is assumed that average American and Can­
adian workers receive no dependents’ supplements and that the
worker has been earning the average wags in manufacturing prior to
unemployment. Earnings-related unemployment benefits are based
on a person’s earnings in a past period of time. This past period
(“base period”) varies from country to country. For example,
in the majority of States in the United States, the base period is the
highest quarter of wages during the year preceding unemployment.
In Japan, benefits are based upon the average daily wage in the
6 months preceding unemployment. France uses a base period of
the 3 months preceding unemployment. In Great Britain, the
base period is the tax year (April-March) preceding the calendar
year in which the claim to benefit is made. These varying base
periods were not taken into account in the calculations made in
table 21. These calculations simply state the level of benefits avail­
able in mid-1975 as a percent of average manufacturing earnings
in mid-1975.
24




58

Table 21. Unemployment benefits as a percent of average
earnings, manufacturing workers, mid-1975
Married worker
with 2 children

Country

United States1 ...................
Canada ...................................
Japan ...................................
France ...................................
Regular s y s te m ................
First 3 m o n th s .............
Subsequent months . .
Supplementary
benefits system3 . . . .
Germany .............................
Great B r it a i n ......................
First 6 months4 .............
Next 6 months4 .............
I t a l y ......................................
Flat-rate b e n e fits .............
Earnings-related
scheme5 .........................
Sweden6 ................................

Single
worker

Unemploy­
ment
benefits

Unemploy­
ment bene­
fits and
family
allowances

50
63
60

50
63
62

68

56
50

63
57

269-77
263-71

90
60

90
60

296-104

38
19

60
41

63
44

9

22

22

67
62-72

80
62-72

80
67-79

50

62

66

1 Figures shown are representative of the majority of States.
2 Lower figures relate to family allowance payable to family
with more than 1 wage earner; higher figure includes single wage
earner allowance.
3 For workers under age 60 laid o ff for cyclical or structural
reasons.
4 Means-tested public assistance payments can substantially
raise these ratios.
5 Industrial sector employee at the same enterprise for 3 months.
6Trade union system. Numerical ranges due to trade union
funds.

dependents’ supplements in Great Britain increases the level
of earnings replacement above the U.S. level for the first 6
months of unemployment. In France, the addition of sup­
plements under the regular system keeps the replacement
ratio higher than the U.S. level even after it is scaled down
following the first 3 months of unemployment. Under the
supplementary program, there are no dependents’ supple­
ments, but family allowances continue to be received.
All the countries studied except the United States
provided for higher wage replacement rates for persons earn­
ing relatively low wages. In Canada, a benefit rate of 75
percent applies to claimants with dependents and with
earnings below one-third of maximum weekly insurable
earnings. Similarly, Japanese workers at the low end of the
wage scale receive 80 percent of their former wage. France
allows a maximum payment of combined regular insurance
and assistance of 90 percent of the former earnings of the
household. This maximum is raised to 95 percent if there
are dependents.
In Great Britain, the maximum of the flat rate plus
earnings-related supplements equals 85 percent of former
earnings. Germany allows unemployment insurance plus
family allowances to amount to 80 percent of former net

tecting many workers threatened by dismissal in these
countries.
Some countries, such as the United States, have tra­
ditionally rejected the idea of compensation for short-time
work because it can encourage rigidity in the labor market,
with employers receiving public funds to keep workers em­
ployed while not adopting necessary technological and or­
ganizational changes. While this argument is recognized as
valid, defenders of the short-time compensation system are
prepared to pay the price. They are convinced that, as soon
as temporary difficulties are overcome, it will prove to be
much more efficient and cheaper to have maintained trained
personnel.26 Also they consider that layoffs are viewed
most unfavorably by the public (see section on legal and
social factors).

earnings (about 70 percent of gross earnings). Sweden’s
trade union system allows a maximum benefit of about 90
percent of gross earnings. In Italy, flat-rate benefits will
replace a higher proportion of the earnings of a low income
than of a middle- or high-wage earner. However, there is no
maximum percentage applied. In contrast to the foreign
practices, the United States does not provide higher replace­
ment rates to lower income workers. But such workers are
eligible for such welfare programs as food stamps.
In the United States, unemployment benefits are
treated as tax-free income. This is also the case in Japan,
Germany, Great Britain, and Italy. In Canada and Sweden,
however, unemployment benefits are taxable; in France, ail
unemployment benefits except the flat-rate assistance pay­
ments are taxable. Canadian unemployment benefits typi­
cally amount to 63 percent of former gross earnings, but,
after taxes, the worker actually receives less. Therefore,
Canadian benefits received by the worker are only slightly
higher than U.S. payments. Similarly, “after-tax” replace­
ment ratios in France and Sweden would be somewhat
nearer the U.S. level.

“Bad weather” compensation. Most European countries
provide special compensation for construction workers who
lose work time on account of bad weather. These schemes
take three major forms: Statutory systems; collective agree­
ments; and collective agreements given the force of law.
To qualify for bad-weather benefit payments, workers
are generally required to report for duty at the usual time
and to remain available for any other reasonable alternative
work which may be assigned to them by the employer. The
amount of compensation ranges between 60 and 75 per­
cent of the basic wage, but in some cases is as high as 90 per­
cent. In some countries, such as Austria, Norway, Sweden,
and Great Britain, a limit is placed on the number of hours
or days for which bad weather is compensated. In other
countries, such as Germany and Ireland, no time limit has
been instituted. In most countries, these schemes are fi­
nanced only through contributions from employers. In a
fewr countries, workers also pay contributions in addition
to their unemployment insurance contributions. In general,
government financing has been confined to occasions when
funds prove inadequate.
The system in Germany provides a good example of a
compensatory income program. Since 1959, construction
workers in Germany have been kept on the employer’s pay­
roll during the winter months (November 1 to March 31)
and receive compensation- termed “bad weather money”for any days not worked because of inclement weather. The
employer pays the bad weather compensation along with
the workers’ regular earnings and is reimbursed for the bad
weather pay by the Federal Employment Office. The Ger­
man construction worker does not sever his employment
relationship in order to collect benefits and he is not
counted as unemployed. Prior to the institution of bad
weather money, the German construction worker had to
either depend on unemployment insurance or find other
work during bad weather. The employment relationship

Short-time payments. In some countries, special payments

are available for workers placed on short workweeks. During
1974-75, the introduction or improvement of compensation
for partial unemployment permitted a fairly widespread
resort to part-time work in several countries as a means of
spreading a reduced volume of employment among the
work force.
For many years, statutory unemployment insurance
or assistance schemes in France, Germany, Great Britain,
and Sweden have contained provisions covering payments
for partial unemployment.25 Japan introduced such pay­
ments in 1975. In Italy, partial-unemployment compensa­
tion is provided by a special institution, the Wage Supple­
ment Fund. The United States and Canada do not have
systems for short-time payments.
Short-time payments replace 70 to 90 percent of fore­
gone gross earnings in Japan, 80 percent in Italy, 60 percent
in Germany, and about 50 percent in France. Generally, fi­
nancing is partly out of public funds and partly by the firms
concerned.
Almost 3 million Japanese workers (5 to 6 percent of
the labor force) received short-time compensation at some
time during 1975. In Germany, the number of such workers
peaked at 4 percent of the labor force in early 1975. There
were also large numbers of workers receiving short-time
compensation in France and Italy during 1974-75. Without
the special benefit programs, many of the workers on short
workweeks would have been unemployed. Short-time pay­
ments have undoubtedly played an important role in pro-

2 5 For further information see Sar A. Levitan and Richard S.
Belous, “Work-sharing Initiatives at Home and Abroad,” Monthly
2 6 National Commission for Manpower Policy, Reexamining Eur­
Labor Review, September 1977, pp. 16-20; and Peter Henle, Work
opean Manpower Policies, Special Report No. 10 (Washington,
Sharing as an Alternative to Layoffs (Washington, Congressional
August 1976), p. 31.
Research Service, July 19,1976)




59

was estimated that initially about 75,000 persons were af­
fected by the new scheme.
In Great Britain, an early retirement scheme began in
January 1977.29 It provided £23 a week tax-free to em­
ployed or unemployed persons who opted to retire a year
early. If such early-retirement volunteers were employed,
their employers had to replace them with someone on the
unemployment register. The initial trial scheme expired
at the end of June 1977, and 10,600 persons were involved.
A second phase of the scheme began July 1,1977, and was
expected to cover about 13,000 more persons.
Sweden instituted a national partial retirement scheme
in mid-1976.30 If the insured worker transfers to part-time
work, he can receive a partial pension between ages 60 and
65. The pension replaces 65 percent of the income lost be­
cause of the transfer. The scheme is financed by employers
through a social insurance fee. The law also makes it possible
to receive a reduced pension as early as age 60, while the
usual pensionable age was lowered from 67 to 65. For per­
sons who opt for early retirement, benefits are reduced by
0.5 percent per month below the age of 65.

was severed and he was counted as unemployed in the
German statistics.
As a result of the bad weather money system,German
unemployment rates in the construction industry are not
appreciably higher than the overall unemployment rate.
Before the institution of the system, construction industry
unemployment was about 3x times the overall unemploy­
h
ment rate.
Another practice with a similar effect occurs in Great
Britain. There, construction workers receive a guaranteed
minimum wage; this encourages their employers to utilize
work forces as fully as possible. The scheme provides for
the worker to receive the normal wage for half the time lost
during a normal workweek, with a guarantee that he will
receive his usual pay for a minimum of 36 hours in a week.
He is also entitled to 36 hours of pay during the following
week. Thereafter, if the bad weather continues, he is re­
quired to register as unemployed under the unemployment
compensation system. This scheme places the cost of idle­
ness directly on the employer, thus creating an incentive for
him to stabilize production at the highest possible level.

Early retirement benefits. Payment of early retirement

Labor market programs

benefits can reduce recorded unemployment in two ways.
First, the early retiree may withdraw from the labor force;
therefore, he would not be regarded as unemployed. Second,
his early retirement may free a job for an unemployed per­
son. Whether a retired person wishes to continue to work
depends in part on the amount of his pension. The higher
it is, the less likely he will be to continue working.
Various schemes for early retirement have been offered
to workers in several countries, usually for cyclical or struc­
tural reasons. In France, for workers over 60 years of age at
time of dismissal or who become 60 while receiving unem­
ployment benefits, a 1972 income guarantee scheme re­
placed the former payments made to workers until they
reached retirement a g e-“waiting allowances”—under the
unemployment insurance program.27 Recipients of the in­
come guarantee, unlike recipients of “waiting allowances,”
are not included in the registered unemployed. The scheme
guarantees that workers dismissed after reaching age 60 will
receive benefits up until their retirement at age 65. These
benefiis are more generous than the normal unemployment
benefits, replacing up to 85 percerii of former earnings.
As of July 1975, French manual workers who have
been engaged in more arduous kinds of labor, and also all
women workers who have borne at least three children, be­
came cag:: * id early retirement at 60 on the same pension
as is normally given at age 6 5 } 8 The measure was enacted
partly in response to a union campaign for early retirement
as a means of combating rapidly rising unemployment. It

Labor market policies constitute the measures used
by government to upgrade the skills of workers, to create
jobs, and to match people and jobs. The general techniques
of labor market policy have been developed and used in
both Western Europe and North America. However, differ­
ences in economic environment, social attitudes, and insti­
tutional arrangements have had an impact on the mix of
labor market measures and on the way in which they have
been applied in different countries.31
The following sections present a brief discussion of
some of the instruments of labor market policy used in the
major industrial countries. Government-sponsored adult
training seeks to upgrade the quality o f the work force.
Public works projects have been used to create jobs in times
of cyclical or seasonal employment downturns. In the area
of matching people and jobs, relocation incentives for
workers and industries and the work of the national employ­
ment services are significant instruments of labor market
policy.

Training programs. The United States first embarked upon
a large-scale government program of retraining for adults
2 9 See “Jop Swap,” Incomes Data Services, IDS International
Report, October 1976, p. 2; and “Job Release Takes Off,” De­
partment o f Employment News, January 1977, p. 1.
30“Flexible Retirement Provisions in Sweden: A Novel System,”
European Industrial Relations Review, March 1977, pp. 11-12.

2 7Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 31 For a study of the different strategies taken with regard to the
mix between unemployment compensation and other employment
Economic Suney o f France (Paris, OECD, February 1973), p. 22.
policies, see Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop­
2 8 Incomes Data Services, “Early Retirement for Some Manual ment, Unemployment Compensation and Related Employment
Workers in 1 ranee,” IDS International Report, July 1976, pp. 2-3.
Policy Measures (Paris, OECD, forthcoming).



60

under the 1962 Manpower Development and Training Act.
The MDTA expired at the end of fiscal year 1973. Govern­
ment training programs are now authorized under the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) of
1973. Western European countries have been operating re­
training programs throughout the postwar period, and in
some cases, as far back as the 1920’s and 1930’s.32
The European training programs offer adult trainees
a variety of benefits to enable them to undertake training.
These benefits include compensation for loss of earnings,
social insurance premiums, lodging and food, special cloth­
ing and tools, travel, and dual household maintenance.3 3
Unlike the situation in the United States, where 85
percent of ail training program enrollees were disadvantaged
in 1974,3 ^European training programs are not concentrated
on the disadvantaged. The European programs are available
to persons seeking advancement or preparation for short­
age occupations as well as to the unemployed and unskilled.
Public systems of continuous training of adults, some­
times called lifetime learning, are coming to the fore in
Western Europe.35 The need for a more qualified work
force is judged to be so urgent and the right to training for
advancement so fundamental that France (1967 and 1971)
and Germany (1969) have made outright commitments to
the principle of universal eligibility to continuing lifetime
training. The existence of a vast amount of adult training in
the United States, including private and public vocational
training, and the long period of general education compared
with other countries probably lessen the need for “perma­
nent education.”
New enrollments in government-sponsored training
programs were 2.4 percent of the Swedish labor force in
1976 compared with 1.5 percent in the United States in
fiscal 1976.36* Recent rapid expansion in Canadian training
3 2 See Margaret S. Gordon, The Comparative Experience with
Retraining Programs in the United States and Europe (Berkeley,
University of California, 1966).
33U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Man­
power Policy and Programs in Five Western European Countries,
(Manpower Research Bulletin Number 11, July 1966).
34Under CETA, the composition of participants in U.S. programs
has changed somewhat. In fiscal 1976, 76 percent of all trainees
under Title I of CETA were classified as disadvantaged.

programs has put that country close to Sweden in the ex­
tent o f adult training. German legislation in 1969 and 1971
had laid the basis for an explosive expansion of adult train­
ing under public sponsorship, and France’s 1971 law on
adult training sets a goal of keeping over 2 percent of the
labor force constantly in training.3 7
Sweden is unique in that it has deliberately employed
its adult training programs as an economic instrument for
countercyclical purposes, expanding them rapidly when­
ever demand slackens. Thus, the training courses in Sweden
are used as a form of public works for the unemployed as
well as a means of upgrading the skills of the labor force.
They have been an important factor in holding Swedish un­
employment rates low during economic downturns.

Job creation. Public works projects are used in most coun­
tries to offset cyclical or seasonal declines in employment.
In Germany, unemployment insurance funds may be used
to provide jobs on public works projects in lieu of making
unemployment insurance payments. The relief work pro­
grams include road construction, reforestation, and re­
covery of wastelands. Preference is given to projects likely
to lead to permanent jobs.
Projects similar to those in Germany are utilized in
Sweden. In 1976, almost 1 percent of the Swedish work
force was employed in relief works. The Swedish Labor
Market Board also has unique powers for stimulating the in­
vestment of private capital to create jobs and mitigate
cyclical fluctuations.38*This requires close coordination of
monetary and fiscal policy with employment policy. Em­
ployers may set aside as much as 40 percent of their profits
for capital investment, depositing a fixed proportion of this
in the Swedish central bank, without paying income taxes
on the amount set aside. When it is determined that capital
investment would be appropriate to combat a recession, the
funds may be released with additional tax incentives to em­
ployers who use them for new plant and equipment.

In the United States, the first large-scale public works
employment program since the 1930’s was enacted in 1971.
Under this Public Employment Program (PEP), funds were
made available nationally for public service employment
when the national unemployment rate equaled or exceeded
4.5 percent for 3 consecutive months. As a result, 226,000
persons, or about 0.3 percent of the labor force, obtained
employment during fiscal 1972. PEP was terminated at the
3 5 Beatrice Reubens, “Manpower Policy in Western Europe,” end of fiscal 1973, and public works jobs are now funded
under CETA. in fiscal 1976, first-time enrollments in public
Manpower, November 1972, pp. 16-22.

U.S. figures comprise first-time enrollments under Titles I,
III, and IV of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act.
Title I authorizes a nationwide program ol comprehensive employ­
ment and training services. Title 111 provide.; lor nationally spon­
sored and supervised training and job placement programs for
such special groups as youth, offenders, older workers, and others
with a particular labor market disadvantage. Title IV provides the
authorization for the Job Corps, a program ot intensive education,
counseling, and training for disadvantaged youth.
36




7
In 1973, about 3.7 percent of the French labor force received
training in whole :i in part with government funds. Since many
courses are of brief duration. a smaller proportion of the labor
force wac in government-funded training at any one time.
3

38
See Hans Brems, “Swedish Fine Turing,” Challenge, MarchAprii 1976, pp. 39-42; and “Anti-Recession Policies in Sweden,”
OECD Observer, March-April 1976, pp. 31-32.

61

service jobs under CETA totalled 487,000, or 0.5 percent
of the U.S. labor force.39

Matching people and jobs . All Western European countries

and Canada include relocation assistance as an important
part of their labor market programs. There are allowances
for travel expenses, payments to cover the cost of moving
household goods, and in some countries a resettlement
allowance to help defray the expenses of selling one home
and buying another and allowances to cover the added ex­
pense of maintaining two households if the worker cannot
move his family right away. In the United States, relocation
with government assistance is not extensive.40
The United States has had some experience with
fostering economic development in lagging regions beginning
with programs under the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961.
In the mid-1960’s, further steps were taken with the enact­
ment of the Appalachian Regional Development Act and
the programs of the Economic Development Administra­
tion. These provided for business loans, grants and loans
for public works and development facilities, technical
assistance, and research assistance in areas with relatively
high unemployment.
European countries have had considerable experience
in the use of programs to attract industry to areas where
unemployment is high. In Germany and Great Britain, there
are programs to encourage investment and industrial growth
in areas where surplus labor is available. France uses a sys­
tem o f loans, interest subsidies, and tax incentives to guide
industrial location. In Sweden, the Labor Market Board can
influence the location of industrial enterprises through its
authority to approve loans.
Measures to improve information about available
workers and job vacancies concern both the demand and
supply side of the labor market. Employment services in
almost all countries studied have been modernized, although
the scope and quality of the services offered vary from
country to country.
It should be noted that only in the English-speaking
countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, and Great
3 9 Enrollments under Titles II and VI of CETA. Title II authorizes
transitional public service employment and other manpower services
in areas with 6.5 percent or higher unemployment for 3 consecu­
tive months. Title VI authorizes a temporary emergency program of
public service jobs to help ease the impact of high unemployment.
Public works jobs have also been created by the Public Works Econ­
omic Development Act. By June 30, 1977, 38,000 short-term jobs,
amounting to 19,900 labor months of work, had been created by
this act.
Relocation assistance projects for workers were undertaken
under the MDTA, which aided the relocation of about 14,000
workers and their families between 1965 and 1969. Congress
did not appropriate any funds for these projects after 1969. There
is relocation assistance available under the Trade Act of 1974 to
workers who lose their jobs because of imports.
40




62

Britain-is there extensive activity by private employment
agencies. In most countries such agencies are forbidden, re­
stricted to certain occupations, or regulated. In Great
Britain, regulatory legislation was passed in 1973 which
established licensing requirements for private employment
agencies.
Data-processing techniques have frequently been in­
troduced in employment service agencies to match job va­
cancies and applicants with a minimum of delay. Japan
has pioneered in the development of a computerized em­
ployment service linking the 700 offices of the service with
a Labor Market Center. Only in Japan and France does it
appear that computers do the work of matching job require­
ments and candidate qualifications.41*In the United States,
for example, job banks in most States have eliminated
tedious searching through files, but searching on supply
and demand sides is carried on separately. In Japan, Sweden,
and Germany, interregional placements have grown whereas
in the United States local market clearance predominates.
Factors affecting youth unemployment

The business cycle has a pronounced effect on youth
unemployment. Thus international differences in youth un­
employment rates are partly the result of cyclical factors
such as the timing and severity of recessions. However, in
times of both prosperity and recession, the United States
has had youth unemployment rates which rank among the
highest in the industrial world. The United States has also
had a rather wide differential between youth and adult un­
employment rates, although some countries have caught up
with or surpassed the United States in recent years in terms
of the youth-adult differential. (See chapter 3.)
Some o f the factors which may affect international
differences in youth unemployment rates are discussed be­
low. Supply and demand trends in the youth labor market
are discussed first. Other aspects considered are the student
labor force, apprenticeship, counseling and placement serv­
ices, and the youth minimum wage.

Supply and demand. As indicated in an earlier section, the

United States and Canada have had rapid increases in the
teenage labor force during the period since 1960, while the
European countries and Japan have had declining teenage
work forces. Thus the United States and Canada were under
pressure from a fast-growing teenage labor force which con­
tributed to higher rates o f both overall and teenage unem­
ployment. However, some countries in which the teenage

41 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
Inflation: the Present Problem (Paris, OECD, December 1970),
p. 108; and ‘‘Manpower Policy in Japan,” OECD Observer, April
1973, p. 34. Computer processing of job openings and job appli­
cants in France began in 1977. The system currently operates on
a regional basis and there are pians to eventually establish links
between the regional computer systems.

In the United States, unemployment rates for stu­
dents have been higher than for nonstudents under age 25
since 1965, reversing the situation of the early 1960’s and
previously, when the rates were higher for those out of
school. The higher rate among students may reflect the
much larger numbers seeking employment and their limited
availability with respect to hours of work 45
Separate figures for employment and unemployment
of students are not available for most countries. No country
has a survey as comprehensive as the October special labor
force survey questions on students for the United States.46
However, some information on student labor force activity
is available for Canada, Great Britain, and Japan.
According to the October 1975 survey for the United
States, 31 percent of all employed persons age 16 to 24
were enrolled in school. If part-time college students are
excluded, the proportion declines to 26 percent. Persons
enrolled in school accounted for 14 percent of total U.S.
unemployment. If they had not been included, the October
1975 unemployment rate (not seasonally adjusted) would
have been 6.7 percent rather than 7.8 percent.
A recent special study on labor force activities of
Canadian students presented some data which can be com­
pared with the U.S. October surveys.47 The figures indicate
that student labor force activity in Canada, although sub­
stantial, is not as widespread as in the United States. In
October 1975, 24 percent o f all employed persons age 15
to 24 were enrolled in school. If part-time Canadian stu­
dents are excluded, the proportion falls to 19 percent. Per­
The student labor force. The labor market activity of stu­
dents in the United States differs markedly from the pattern sons enrolled in school accounted for 11 percent of total
abroad. The frequent entries and exits of students in the Canadian unemployment in October 1975.
British full-time students who also worked accounted
American labor market do not occur to any significant
for only 9 percent of total employment of 15- to 24-yearextent in Western European countries and Japan. The work­
ing student is very much an American phenomenon. The olds in 1972. This figure is an annual average; a figure for
young persons who work or seek work in other countries students working during the school term (as reflected in
the U.S. figures for October ) would be considerably lower.
are mainly out-of-school youth.
However, even on an annual basis, the figure is well below
4 2 In response to the rise in youth unemployment during the the U.S. and Canadian proportions for October.
In Japan, only about 50,000 persons are normally
1970’s, the OECD has carried out research on the problems faced by
young people in the transition from school to work. See The Entry engaged in both work and schooling. This represents less
o f Young People into Working Life (Paris, OECD, 1977). In addi­ than 1 percent of employment in the 15- to 24-year-old
tion, the OECD convened a “High Level Conference on Youth Un­
employment” in December 1977 to work out a diagnosis of the age group.
The United States has much higher proportions of 16problem and to exchange national experiences concerning the
to 19-year-olds in school. (See table 22.) For example, about
measures taken to deal with youth unemployment. The Council of
Ministers of Social Affairs of the European Communities (EC) also 94 percent of all 16-year-olds are in school in the United
held a conference on youth unemployment in late 1977 to identify States, 80 percent in Japan, 40 percent in Great Britain,
areas where common action might be necessary.
and 30 percent in Germany. For 19-year-olds, the contrast
labor force has actually declined-e.g., France and Italy—
also have substantial youth unemployment.
During the 1960’s, a tight labor market in many Eu­
ropean countries and Japan fostered a high demand for
young workers. Labor shortages gave many young people
opportunities to choose among jobs and to enter the occu­
pational hierarchy at higher levels than would have been
possible in less favorable times. The favorable experience of
the 1960’s has been changing, and several countries have
observed a deterioration in the relative position of youth in
recent years as structural problems have been intensified by
deep recession,42
In some nations, new entrants are eagerly sought by
employers who are willing to take youngsters without
occupational skills or previous work experience. Japan,
Great Britain, and Germany are among the countries where
the transition is eased because employers recruit young
people straight from school and provide training for many
of them. While this acceptance of youth is less common in
France, it is even less visible in the United States where
employers exhibit little active interest in hiring teenagers.43
According to one study, employers are reluctant to hire
American teenagers because of restrictions on employing
them in hazardous work, the cumbersome machinery of
work certificates, union restrictions, and problems of trans­
portation 44 Also, dissatisfaction with teenager absenteeism,
unreliability, and job performance is common.

4 3 Beatrice G. Reubens, “Foreign and American Experience with
the Youth Transition,” in From School to Work: Improving the
45 Anne M. Young, “Employment of School Age Youth,” Month­
Transition, a collection of policy papers prepared for the National
ly Labor Review, September 1970, p. 9.
Commission for Manpower Policy (Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976), p. 274. See also Beatrice G. Reubens, Bridges
4 6For example, see Anne M. Young, “Students, Graduates, and
to Work: International Comparisons o f Transition Services (New
Dropouts in the Labor Market, October 1975,” Monthly Labor
York, Universe Books, 1977).
Review, June 1976, pp. 37-41.
44 Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages (BLS Bulletin
1657, 1970), p. 69.



47Leonel Plasse, Labour Force Activities and Characteristics o f
Students, Statistics Canada Research Paper No. 14, July 1977.
63

is even greater. Thus, other countries have a much higher
proportion of teenagers who are out of school and working
at or seeking full-time year-round jobs. Furthermore, those
young persons still in school in Europe and Japan usually
do not also participate in the labor force. This has been at­
tributed to the academic demands of school combined with
government financial support to young persons, especially
those in low income families, who continue their education
beyond the legal minimum age.

marks the beginning of life-long employment. Where ap­
prenticeship programs are significant, they provide employ­
ment security for a good proportion of the young people in
the labor force. Apprentices are not immune to unemploy­
ment but they have shown greater stability during training
than other youth.49 Historically, countries with extensive
apprenticeship programs have had low youth unemploy­
ment.
Apprenticeship in America never acquired the scope
or prestige that it enjoyed in Europe because the economic
and social development of the United States did not encour­
age this form of craft training. Neither employers nor
workers were eager to enter agreements that would be bind­
ing on them for a period of years. U.S. unions obtain the
bulk of their membership through channels other than ap­
prenticeship.50
In recent years, apprenticeship has been declining
relative to other activities of young people in those coun­
tries where apprenticeship formerly was well established.
The number of apprenticeship places has been declining
in Germany, Great Britain, and Australia, for instance.
Employers are increasingly reluctant to undertake ap­
prenticeship because of the rising cost of training, the trend
toward longer schooling which deprives the employer of
the preferred age group, and technological changes which
require a broader, general educational background and
wider, less specialized training.51

Apprenticeship and formal training programs. In the United

Counseling and placement services. Several countries, in­

Table 22. Percent of 16- to 19-year-olds in educational
institutions, all levels, 1966-72
Country

Age

Year
16

United States . .
Australia.............
Canada ................
France ................
Germany . . . .
Great Britain . .
I t a l y ...................
Japan ................
Sweden .............

1970
1972
1970
1970
1969
1970
1966
1970
1972

17

18

19

94.1
54.9
87.1
62.6
31.3
41.6
33.6
80.0
73.7

86.9
36.3
69.0
45.5
19.2
25.9
27.4
74.8
60.7

58.1
18.0
45.5
30.6
12.9
17.4
19.7
29.5
40.7

45.4
10.7
30.3

21.8
9.6
13.7

11.0
22.0
24.0

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel­
opment, Educational Statistics Yearbook, VoL II, Country Tables
(Pa?is, OECD, 1975) as tabulated by Beatrice Reubens in From
School to Work: Improving the Transition, a collection of policy
papers prepared for the National Commission for Manpower Policy
(Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976), p. 280.

cluding Germany, Great Britain, and Japan, engage in ex­
tensive counseling and placement activities for youth.52
In Germany, for instance, the Federal employment serv­
ice and its local agencies provide nearly all students with
comprehensive vocational orientation before graduation.
If training in the chosen occupation is not available locally,
the vocational guidance service can provide youth with fi­
nancial assistance to go where training is given. In Great
Britain, staff members of the Careers Offices of the Youth

States, a small proportion of high school graduates enroll in
apprenticeship or vocational training courses. A study of
the high school class of 1972 indicated that only 1.9 per­
cent planned to enroll in apprenticeship or on-the-job train­
ing programs and 10.8 percent planned to take vocational
or technical training at specialized schools or junior col­
leges.48 The total number of apprenticeships completed
annually in the United States is roughly 50,000, with
292,000 persons enrolled in such programs as of January 1,
1975. In contrast, Germany, with a much smaller popula­
tion than the United States, had 1,400,000 persons in ap­
prenticeship programs during 1975. The contrast was even
greater in 1960 when the United States had 166,000 and
Germany had 1,224,000 apprentices in training. In that
year, France had about 140,000 enrolled apprentices and
Great Britain had 123,000.
In most foreign countries, apprenticeship and voca­
tional education are widespread. Vocational education pro­
grams are predominant in France and Sweden; apprentice­
ship training is the principal type of industrial training for
youths in Great Britain and Germany, and is widely used
elsewhere. In Japan, training within enterprises usually

Beatrice G. Reubens, “Foreign Experience,” in Report o f Con­
gressional Budget Office Conference on The Teenage Unemploy­
ment Problem: What Are the Options? Congress of the United
States, Congressional Budget Office (Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, October 14, 1976), p. 56.
49

50Thomas H. Patten, Jr., Manpower Planning and the Develop­
ment of Human Resources (New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1971),
pp. 284, 300.
**1Beatrice G. Reubens, Policies for Apprenticeship, Unpublished
study prepared for the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, 1977.
5 2 Reubens, Bridges to Work, op. cit.; Transition from School
to Work in Selected Countries, (Bureau of Labor Statistics, August
1969); David Bauer, Factors Moderating Unemployment Abroad
(New York, The Conference Board, 1970), pp. 8-9; and Manpower
Report o f the President, 1968, p. 118.

National Center for Education Statistics, National Longitudinal
Study o f the High School Class of 1972, Data File Users Manual
(Washington, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
July 1976).
48




64

Employment Service interview almost all school leavers.
During the 1960’s, they placed approximately one-third
of all youths in their first jobs. The public employment
service in Japan conducts guidance programs and provides
information to the education authorities, who in turn give
vocational orientation in the schools. Partly as a result of
the deliberate efforts of the official guidance and place­
ment services to prearrange jobs, a large portion of the
youths of these countries are able to obtain their first job
after leaving school without experiencing an initial period
of unemployment.
Youth minimum wages. Wage differentials based on the
worker’s youth alone are used on a very limited basis in the
United States. The Fair Labor Standards Act contains pro­
visions for subminimum wages for students and learners,
but these provisions have not been used to any significant
extent partly because employers generally regard the re­
quired recordkeeping as too burdensome. Also, employers
feel that students are not willing to work at subminimum
wages.
In contrast, differentials between youth and adult
wages are common in Western Europe and Japan. Some
countries have minimum wage laws that provide for lower
minimum wages for teenagers. Some have collective bargain­
ing procedures that can result in differentially lower wages
for young workers. Still other countries use both mech­
anisms.5 3
Under collective bargaining agreements in Great
Britain, youth enter employment at about 30 percent of
adult earnings and, by steps, reach adult wages normally at
age 21 for men and 18 for women. In France, with both a
statutory minimum and minimum rates set under collective
bargaining, there is a system of reduced rates whereby
youth enter employment at about 70 percent of the adult
minimum at age 16 and reach the adult rate at age 18. Youth
wage rate schemes are also used in Canada, Germany, and
Japan. In Japan, where wages are based in large part on age
or seniority throughout working life, young workers start
at about one-third the adult rate.
It has been argued that relatively low wages for teen­
agers compared to adult wages tend to facilitate the employ­
ment of youth. One study concluded the following:
The evidence from abroad indicates that low wages
for youth are an inducement to employers to seek
young workers eagerly. The relatively low youth
unemployment rates abroad . . . are partially a re­
flection of the fact of low wages for youth.54

This study pointed out that low wages for youth in
Europe cannot be separated from the extensive apprentice­
ship programs in such countries as Germany and Great Bri­
tain and from the lifetime employment system in Japan
under which high wages in later years with the firm offset
the low wages paid young workers. Also, experience in
foreign countries having institutions different from those
in the United States has a limited application to American
teenagers who are much more likely to be looking for a parttime job rather than a permanent job.
The situation in France and Canada demonstrates
that more is involved in achieving full employment among
teenagers than provisions for lower wage levels. Both of
these countries provide youth minimum wages, yet both
have high youth unemployment. Furthermore, in spite of
legislation and agreements for youth differentials, the actual
earnings of youth have risen faster than those of adults in a
number of foreign countries.55 Thus, several European
countries report a growing reluctance on the part of em­
ployers to hire young people because of relatively high
wage rates and fringe benefits for entry-level jobs which re­
sult in a cost disadvantage if training and induction costs
are included. Apprentice wages have also risen considerably
in Western European countries.
Legal and social factors

Legal and social factors play an important role in
holding down unemployment in Western Europe and Japan.
Unemployment in several European countries has been
curbed by legislation or labor-management agreements that
shield workers from layoffs. U.S. job security measures, by
contrast, are much weaker. Where they exist, they are based
on seniority and usually specify severance pay related to
the length of service.56
In Germany, under a 1951 law, a legally valid dis­
charge may be declared ineffective by the Labor Court if it
is “socially unjustified,” that is, if it cannot be based on the
characteristics or conduct of the employee or on important
needs of the enterprise. Even if important business needs
warrant the discharge, it is nevertheless “socially unjusti­
fied” if the employer selected the worker for discharge
without giving sufficient attention to the social factors in­
volved,5 7 The procedures required under the 1951 law
were made even stronger by the Works Constitution Act of
1972. Under certain collective bargaining agreements, Ger­
man employers are prohibited from dismissing workers be55 Reubens, “Foreign Experience,” pp. 287-88.

53 Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages, pp. 107-12,
135-79.

5 6David Jenkins, “Job Security Measures Growing Throughout
Europe,” World o f Work Report, July 1976, p. 3.

54Thomas W. Gavett, “Youth Unemployment and Minimum
Wages,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1970, p. 9.

Kurt Braun, “European Limitations on Employee Dismissal,”
Monthly Labor Review, January 1965, p. 67.




S 7

65

tween a given age (ages 45 to 55, depending on the indus­
try) and the age of pensionable retirement.58
As a good example of how the German system
works, one of the companies of the Thyssen group carried
out a massive reorganization, involving the loss of about
6,000 jobs. The head of the firm’s works council, which is
an employee-run unit financed by the company, discussed
problems with the employees, found jobs for many in other
units of the company, and negotiated numerous problems
with management. Not a single day was lost through labor
conflict and no one suffered exceptional hardship.59
Strict legislation also exists in Italy. Courts have ap­
plied tough standards to judge whether adequate justifica­
tion exists for a dismissal; if not, a dismissed employee is
entitled to reinstatement or an indemnity of 5 months’
wages. In case a layoff is eventually made, the employer is
required to take account of a number of factors, including
the family responsibilities and economic situation of the
workers. In many firms, labor agreements also provide pro­
tection. At Fiat, where worker protection has been increas­
ingly strengthened by labor contracts during the past few
years, no reduction in the work force is permitted.60
The French Ministry of Labor can require an employer
to postpone separations for economic reasons to allow the
Ministry time to determine that every precaution has been
taken to minimize the hardship on workers. The employer
is expected to make strong efforts at the firm’s expense to
find another job for workers about to be separated.
A national agreement on security of employment was
signed in February 1969 by French employers and all the
trade union federations. This agreement, like the individual
industry agreements which followed it, recognizes the re­
sponsibility of the parties towards security of employment.
In the case of prospective dismissals, the firm must consult
with the plant employment committee and give due notice,
endeavor to minimize dismissals, and utilize intraplant or
intracompany transfers. Reductions of staff must be
achieved as far as possible by attrition. The employer must
give a dismissed worker priority reemployment rights for a
year, guarantee seniority rights with the firm, and assist him
in obtaining all unemployment benefits to which he is en­
titled. The employer “must search for possibilities of re­
deployment likely to suit the wage-earners who are dismissed
as well as training facilities from which these workers might
benefit.”61
S8Edward Yemin, “Job Security: Influence of ILO Standards and

Recent Trends,” International Labour Review, January-February
1976, p. 3.

Lennart Forseback, Industrial Relations and Employment in
Sweden (Stockholm, The Swedish Institute, 1976), p. 99.
62

59Jenkins, op. cit., p. 3.

63Jenkins, op. c it, p. 4.
64Characteristics o f Major Collective Bargaining Agreements,
July 1,1975 (BLS Bulletin 1957, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1977),
p. 89.

60 Jenkins, op. cit.,p. 4.
61 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
Manpower Policy in France (Paris, OECD, 1973), p. 63.



An employer’s ability to lay off workers is also con­
siderably restricted by Swedish law. Existing protection of
employees was improved when the Security of Employment
Act went into effect in 1974.62 According to this law, an
employee can only be dismissed on “reasonable” grounds.
The law virtually prohibits the dismissal of any employee
except for the most serious misbehavior. The law is so
stringent that it is beginning to show some counterproduc­
tive effects. It has had a negative effect on the employment
of workers who find it more difficult to prove themselves e.g., the young, the old, and the handicapped.63 The Pro­
motion of Employment Act of 1974 contains rules designed
to help older employees and disabled workers. According
to these rules, labor market authorities are to negotiate
with the employer and appropriate trade union in an effort
to allow such workers to retain their jobs.
Laws or labor-management agreements requiring ad­
vance notice of layoff give workers time to look for another
job prior to dismissal. Where advance notification provisions
are in effect, they allow for the placing of at least some
workers in new jobs without a period of unemployment
associated with the job search.
In the United States, most collective bargaining agree­
ments do not contain clauses prescribing advance notice of
layoff. Moreover, those provisions that deal generally with
advance notice of layoff (43 percent of the major agree­
ments) normally specifiy only a very limited time periodin most cases less than 30 days.64
Advance notification has been required by various
laws regarding the dismissal of workers in Western European
countries. One type of law obliges the employer to notify
the employment service of the impending dismissal. Such
laws exist in France,Germany, and Great Britain. In Sweden,
the Employers’ Federation has an agreement with the
Labor Market Board which requires a minimum of 30 days’
notice to the employment service by employers preceding
collective dismissals. Also, the Promotion of Employment
Act (1974) contains rules concerning periods of notice to
trade unions before production cutbacks can involve dis­
missals.
Another type of law calls for advance notice to em­
ployees prior to dismissal. France, Germany, Great Britain,
and Sweden have such legislation. For example, the Swedish
law on Security of Employment requires a minimum of 1
month’s notice, with longer notice (up to 6 months) as an
employee gets older.
Besides laws, social custom and tradition play an
important part in diminishing the threat of layoff in Europe
and Japan. Employers avoid dismissals if at all possible be-

66

cause they feel a high degree of responsibility for their
regular employees and continue to provide employment,
perhaps at reduced hours, when production declines. In
addition, the employer may be somewhat afraid of loss of
prestige among his fellow employers, because layoffs might
be interpreted as proof of his failure as businessman. In
Sweden, for example, companies reportedly try greatly to
avoid the weakening of their reputation for job stability,
especially since most major employers are located in small
towns or cities, where company practices are common
knowledge.65
Recognized “regular” employees in Japan benefit
from a paternalistic attitude on the part of employers that
is unmatched by other industrial nations. In large Japanese
enterprises, appointment to a regular job virtually assures
employment until retirement, and the employer takes re­
sponsibility for maintaining the worker during periods of
economic adversity.
In most foreign industrial countries, legal and social
restrictions against layoff are reinforced by the reluctance
of workers to change jobs in search of improved wages or
working conditions. In the United States and Canada, labor
turnover rates in manufacturing are significantly higher
than in Western Europe and Japan. The United States and
Canada have approximately 50 to 60 separations (quits,
layoffs, and other job terminations) annually per 100 oc­
cupied jobs. European separation rates, in contrast, gen­
erally range from 30 to 40 per 100 jobs, and Japanese
separation rates are even lower, under 30 per 100 jobs
annually. Quit rates, where available, show a similar dis­
parity among the United States, Canada, and other in­
dustrial nations.
Data on the duration of unemployment indicate that
a larger proportion of U.S. and Australian unemployment
is of the short-term job-changing variety compared with
other countries. However, it is not known to what extent
differences in the proportion of those unemployed for
long periods can be attributed to differences in the dura­
tion and level of unemployment benefits.
In the United States, mobility is often considered
a desirable attribute of a worker even though the search
for a new job may entail some unemployment. In contrast,
the job attachment of European and Japanese workers is
much stronger than in the United States, partly because of
the belief that a change of jobs is likely to reflect unfavor­
ably on a worker’s dependability.
Conclusion

Why there has been more unemployment in the
United States than in most Western European countries
and Japan is a question to which there is no simple or uni­
versally accepted answer. The foregoing analysis has re6 sJenkins, op. cit., p. 4.



67

vealed several reasons for differences in unemployment
rates. The relatively rapid increase in the U.S. labor force
has contributed to higher unemployment here. The labor
force in most other countries has grown quite slowly or de­
clined. Teenagers make up a relatively high and growing pro­
portion of the labor force in the United States. This is sig­
nificant because teenage unemployment is higher than the
overall average in all countries. The teenage labor force has
grown rapidly in the United States while declining in all
countries except Canada and Australia. This decline has
helped keep Western European and Japanese unemploy­
ment rates down, but, in the early 1960’s, when teenagers
constituted a larger proportion of the labor force than in
the United States, these countries had substantially lower
unemployment rates than the United States. The small
proportion of the U.S. labor force engaged in agriculture
and the large wage and salary component have also con­
tributed to our higher unemployment rates compared with
most industrial countries.
Cyclical flows of foreign workers to and from certain
European countries help to dampen unemployment in­
creases during recessions. The United States does not have
significant cyclical movements in its foreign labor supply.
In many European countries, strong efforts have been
made to achieve a better distribution of work throughout
the year by reducing seasonal fluctuations in hirings and
dismissals. Government directives and financial incentives
have helped to lower seasonal fluctuations, particularly in
the construction sector. The United States does not exert as
much control over construction scheduling as some other
countries.
Income maintenance arrangements may have an
important impact on unemployment statistics. A com­
parison of unemployment insurance systems reveals that
most countries now have a fairly broad coverage of the
labor force, a lengthy maximum duration of benefit pay­
ments, and benefits which typically replace at least half of
former earnings of the average manufacturing worker. Most
foreign countries provide higher levels of income replace­
ment to the unemployed than the United States, especially
when dependents’ supplements and family allowances are
taken into account. On the other hand, the United States
provides a comparatively long duration of benefits during
times of recession. In some countries, bonuses for quick re­
employment and the practice of scaling down benefits
after a certain length of time may provide incentives to find
new jobs more quickly than would otherwise occur. Shorttime payments, “bad weather” compensation, and early re­
tirement arrangements may also serve to avoid statistical
increases in the number of unemployed persons. The under­
employment of many workers receiving short-time pay­
ments abroad does not show up in the unemployed count.
Some countries have experienced much lower levels
of youth unemployment than the United States. One
reason has been the great deal of student labor force activity

The widespread use of short-time benefits in Europe
and Japan and their absence in the United States reflect
different social and cultural patterns. In most European
countries and Japan, there is a traditional preference for
job security as against job mobility; layoffs have ordinarily
meant dismissal and a break in the employer-employee
relationship. In the United States, layoffs are much more
common. When American firms in Europe have attempted
to lay off workers in the postwar years, they have faced
strong adverse reactions because of these differences in
social patterns.
It is evident that the different institutions, attitudes,
and practices of other countries help many of them to
maintain lower average unemployment rates than appear to
be feasible at present in the United States. It can be argued,
however, that at least some of the reasons for the lower un­
employment rates in Europe and Japan arise from features
which inhibit efficiency as well as lower unemployment.
For example, while higher labor turnover rates and greater
worker mobility in the United States increase the average
level of unemployment, the job security of the regular
worker in Europe and Japan also involves an appreciable
cost. Unemployment may be less cyclically volatile because
of hoarding of labor during downturns of economic activity,
but the result may be disguised unemployment rather than
overt unemployment. Although foreign employment prac­
tices bring advantages in the form of income maintenance
and job security, some of these benefits are probably paid
for by a lower aggregate productivity of labor.
Furthermore, many foreign countries still have a
large proportion of small, family-owned businesses which
shield self-employed and unpaid family workers from the
threat of unemployment. During slack periods, such
workers tend to work part time or withdraw from the labor
force rather than seek another job with pay. In the United
States, the economies of scale that can be realized in a
large, homogeneous market have encouraged business con­
solidations, so that self-employment and unpaid family
work occur less frequently and the risk of unemployment
is increased. Where small, family-owned businesses are still
predominant, workers may be underemployed a good part
of the time, impairing the efficiency and productivity of
the countries involved.

in the United States compared to abroad. Also, European
educational and labor market institutions have tended to
put the masses of youth into training for narrow vocational
specialties while American youth are still continuing general
education. The European system’s emphasis on apprentice­
ship and vocational training tends to put young people into
stable work-training relationships that discourage mobility.
The prevalence of “lifetime” employment arrangements in
Japan also discourages worker mobility.
Thus, joblessness among youth abroad has been
checked partly because of vocational guidance and indus­
trial training which reduce the frequent job changes and
spells of unemployment characteristic of young persons in
the United States. However, vocational education in Europe
reflects a heavily structured status system for entry into
jobs--the kind of system that has been traditionally rejected
in the United States.66 A firm decision regarding a career at
the age of 15 to 17 is common in Europe. These countries
seem to prefer to structure the early years of work by such
devices as apprenticeship systems, severance pay regulations,
or lifetime contracts, as in Japan. While these devices re­
duce the level of frictional unemployment, they also reduce
mobility and possibilities for career changes in later life. In
the United States, youth counselors have stressed the im­
portance of extended schooling rather than early career de­
cision because of the wider range of jobs open to persons
with high school diplomas and college degrees.
The threat of layoffs in Europe and Japan is consider­
ably diminished by legal restraints and management’s reluc­
tance to let workers go. Moreover, the worker’s attachment
to the job is firmer abroad than in the United States. Labor
mobility is low, and short-term transitional unemployment
is much less prevalent than in the United States. It is appar­
ent that unemployment in Japan, and to some extent in
certain other industrial countries, is not a threat to the en­
tire body of wage and salary workers, as in the United
States. Rather, it tends to be more concentrated among a
restricted group of temporary or seasonal workers, new
entrants, or others in the process of entering or leaving
the labor force.
6 6Manpower Report of the President, 1968, p. 117.




68

Appendix A. International Labour Office Definitions

4. The following categories of persons are not consid­
ered as employed:
a. Workers who during the specified period were on
temporary or indefinite layoff without pay;
b. persons without jobs or business or farms who had
arranged to start a new job or business or farm at
a date subsequent to the period of reference;
c. unpaid members of the family who worked for
less than one-third of the normal working time
during the specified period in a family business or
farm.

In 1954, the Eighth International Conference of Labour
Statisticians adopted the following definitions of labor
force, employment, and unemployment:
Labor force

The civilian labor force consists of all civilians who ful­
fill the requirements for inclusion among the employed or
the unemployed, as defined below.
The total labor force is the sum of the civilian labor
force and the Armed Forces.

Unemployment

Employment

1. Persons in employment consist of all persons above
a specified age in the following categories:
a. At work; persons who performed some work for
pay or profit during a specified brief period,
either one week or one day;
b. with a job but not at work; persons who, having
• already worked in their present job, were tempor­
arily absent during the specified period because of
illness or injury, industrial dispute, vacation or
other leave of absence, absence without leave, or
temporary disorganization of work due to such
reasons as bad weather or mechanical breakdown.
2. Employers and workers on own account should be
included among the employed and may be classified
as “at work” or “not at work” on the same basis as
other employed persons.
3. Unpaid family workers currently assisting in the
operation of a business or farm are considered as
employed if they worked for at least one-third of the
normal working time during the specified period.




69

1. Persons in unemployment consist of all persons above
a specified age who, on the specified day or for a specified
week, were in the following categories:
a. Workers available for employment whose contract
of employment had been terminated or tempor­
arily suspended and who were without a job and
seeking work for pay or profit;
b. persons who were available for work (except for
minor illness) during the specified period and were
seeking work for pay or profit, who were never
previously employed or whose most recent status
was other than that of employee (i.e. former
employers, etc.), or who had been in retirement;
c. persons without a job and currently available for
work who had made arrangements to start a new
job at a date subsequent to the specified period;
d. persons on temporary or indefinite layoff without
pay.
2. The following categories of persons are not consid­
ered to be unemployed:
a. Persons intending to establish their own business
or farm, but who had not yet arranged to do so,
who are not seeking work for pay or profit;
b. former unpaid family workers not at work and
not seeking work for pay or profit.

Appendix B. Sources of Data and Methods of Adjustment: Nine Countries

The rate of insured unemployment is the number of
insured unemployed expressed as a percent of average
covered employment. Because of differences in State laws
and procedures under which unemployment insurance pro­
grams are operated, State unemployment rates generally in­
dicate, but do not precisely measure, differences in unem­
ployment among the individual States. Figures on unem­
ployment insurance claims are published by the Employ­
ment and Training Administration of the Department of
Labor in Unemployment Insurance Claims Weekly Report.
In nonrecessionary periods, unemployed persons re­
ceiving benefits under the various State and other unem­
ployment insurance programs typically account for less
than half of total U.S. joblessness. (This ratio has swelled
during downturns to as much as 75 percent.) For this
reason, and as a consequence of administrative changes and
variations from State to State, statistics from unemploy­
ment insurance programs are not directly comparable with
data on total unemployment from the Current Population
Survey. However, the unemployment insurance data are
extremely useful as indicators of current change, especially
because they are timely and available on a weekly basis.
The second and less widely used series counts indi­
viduals served by the U.S. Employment Service. Monthly
data are available on persons counseled, tested, and/or
placed by the Employment Service. These monthly sta­
tistics are published by the Employment and Training
Administration of the Department of Labor in Selected
Services Provided by the United States Employment Serv­
ice.

United States

The United States has three sources of unemployment
statistics. Data based on the number of persons registering
to collect unemployment insurance are available on a weekly
basis. The number of persons served by the U.S„ Employ­
ment Service is available monthly. Statistics from the
monthly labor force survey have been available since 1940
and are regarded as the “official” unemployment statistics.
Before the 1930’s, no direct measurements were made of
the number of jobless persons. In response to the increased
need for unemployment statistics during the depression of
the 1930’s, direct surveys of the population were initiated
but the definitions of unemployment—those who were not
working but were willing and able to work—did not meet
the standards of objectivity that many technicians felt
were necessary to measure the level of joblessness at a point
in time or changes over a period of time, in 1940, a set of pre­
cise concepts was adopted for the national sample surveys of
households conducted by the Works Progress Administra­
tion. Classification of one’s labor force status depended
principally on whether one was working, looking for work,
or engaged in other activities within a designated time
period, In 1943, responsibility for the survey was trans­
ferred to the Bureau of the Census. In 1959, responsibility
for the analysis and publication of labor force survey data
was shifted to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with the
Bureau of the Census retaining the responsibility for the
collection and tabulation of the statistics.

Labor force survey unemployment. The monthly house­
hold survey—the Current Population Survey (CPS) pro­
vides statistics on the civilian noninstitutionalized popula­
tion 16 years of age and over. Persons under 16 years of age
are excluded from coverage because of child labor laws
and compulsory school attendance. However, separate sta­
tistics are collected and published for 14-and 15-year-olds.
The results of the CPS are published monthly by BLS in
Employment and Earnings.
The CPS is currently collected from a probability
sample of approximately 56,000 households. Since July
1955, the reference week of the CPS is the calendar week
including the 12th day of the month. The actual survey is
conducted during the following week, which is the week
containing the 19th day of the month. Prior to July 1955,
the reference week was the calendar week containing the

Unemployment

Registered unemployment. The United States has two
registered unemployed series: Insured unemployment and
persons registered with the U.S. Employment Service. In­
sured unemployment represents the number of persons
reporting a week of unemployment under an unemployment
insurance program. It includes some persons who are work­
ing part time who would be counted as employed in the
labor force survey. Excluded are persons who have ex­
hausted their benefit rights and workers who have not
earned rights to unemployment insurance. In general, ex­
cluded from coverage are those persons engaged in agri­
culture, domestic service, unpaid family work, selected non­
profit organizations, some State and local government,
and self-employment.



70

U.S. Current Population Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)
18. LINE NUMBER

20. Did . . . do any work at all

21. ( I f J in 19, skip to 21 A .)
Did . . . have a job or

Has . . . been looking for work

work around the house?

business from which he

during the past 4 weeks?

(Note: I f farm or business
operator in hh., ask about
unpaid work)

19. What was. . . doing most of

was temporarily absent or
on layoff LAST WEEK?

LAST WEEK No

Yes

I Working
Keeping house

(Go to 21)

20A. How many hours

Going to school

did . . . work

or something else?

00

LAST WEEK

With a job but not at work .. J

O
O

Going to school.........................S

O
O

Unable to work (Skip to 2 4 ) . . U

O

Retired......................................... R

O
O

Keeping house........................... H

\

Other (S p e c ify ) ................... OT

CHECK ITEM

IS*"” 23)
°
item

49+ O
1 -3 4

O

3 5 -4 8

(Go to 20D)

New job to begin
within 30 days O

,
.
pub. employ, agency

(Under 30 days)

O
O

Yes

O

New job started during week . . .

How many extra
hours did . . . work?

O
O

2) How many weeks

^

^
^

N o ..............................

Self-employed

O

looking for work?

^

r

Don't know ............

Bad weather...................................

3) How many weeks

?

ago w as. . . laid

G

off?

G

C

On vacation...................................
Too busy with housework,
school, personal bus., etc. . .

O
O

part-time work?
Full

for work?
(Mark each reason mentioned)

Part

gg
C

(Skip to 23 and enter job
held last week)

#

not take a job LAST WEEK?
Yes

f Already has a job . . . .

G

G

■ 1 Temporary illness . . . .
A

1

j Going to school............

O

No

O FFICE USE O N LY

..

■ Other (Specify in notes)

O

O

O

\

(Skip to 23 and enter job worked
at last week)

22F. When did . . . last work at a full-time

OCCUPATION

0 0
T I
3 C
3 3
G

°r

A
B
C
D
E

3 5
F
G 6
G
? 21 H
3
I J
O) O, C
K
Ref.

o

0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

o
L o
M o

0 0 0
1 I T
G c G
3 p 3
c 'r

C-, ° r

5 5 5
6 G G
? ?
3
G G

N
P

Q
R
S
T
U
V

w
X

Y
Ref.

O

z

O

job or business lasting 2 consecutive

G
O
O

Believes no work
available in line of work or area

C

Other pers. handicap in finding job
Can't arrange child c a r e ...................
Family responsibilities.....................
In school or other training ..............
Ill health, physical disability............

weeks or more?
Withir last 12 months (Specify).........

G

O
o
o
o

•

Couldn't find any work ..............
Lacks nee, schooling,
training, skills or experience .
Employers
think too young or too old. . .

22E. is there any reason why . . . could

(Skip to 23)

O

Other reason (S p ecify) .................

G

> (Skip to 24E)

24D. What are the reasons. . . is not looking

22D. Has. . . been looking for full-time or
n

2 (Go to 24 D)

(Specify in notes)

G

skip to 23.)

O

Did not want full-time work . . .
Full-time
work week under 35 hours. .

not already included and

Y e s ............................
Maybe — it depends

G

at this job?

™

?

35 hours or more a week

(Correct 20A and 20B as

O

Own illness ....................................

ago did . . . start

21C. Does. . . usually work

No

O

full- or part-time?

m

J

Yes

O

0

has. . . been

C

~

necessary i f extra hours

Holiday (Legal or religious) .........

O th e r.................................................

24C. Does. . . want a regular job now, either

N o ...................

one job LAST WEEK?

Could find only part-time work . O

1) How many weeks

G

looking for work?

Y e s ................

O

Labor dispute.................................

22C.

o ff LAST WEEK?

O

O

Slack work or business conditions
Temporary
nonseasonal job completed . . .
Unsatisfactory work
arrangements (Hours, pay, etc.)

O
O

Lost jo b ............................
Quit jo b ............................

salary for any of the time

O

Job terminated during week . . .

Retirement or old age..............
Seasonal job com pleted.........

O

overtime or at more than

Yes

(Incl. pregnancy) or school .

H e a lth .......................................

O

20E. Did . . . work any

O

Personal, family

G

otherwise, skip to 23.)

No

24B. Why did . . . leave that job?

or was there some other reason?

21B. Is . . . getting wages or

/(S k ip to 24C)

Never worked . . .

or quit a job at that time (pause)

Left school.......................

correct 20B and fill 20C;

O

O

*2 tJ )

Other (Specify in notes) .

USUALLY works less

Plant or machine repair..............

J

J

5 or more years ago

work? Was it because . . . lost

Wanted temporary work

(Correct 2 0A i f lost time
not already deducted;
i f 20A reduced below 35,

What is the reason . . .

4 up to 5 years ago •

tmm

22B. Why did . . . start looking for

>(Go to 24B)

2 up to 3 years ago.
3 up to 4 years ago .

G

take off?

hours LAST WEEK?

Material shortage..........................

(Skjp

\

How many hours

What is the reason . . .

(Mark the appropriate reason)

;

G j

1 up to 2 years ago .

O

d id . . .

worked less than 35

Slack work ...................................

22B and

Nothing (Skip to 2 4 ) ................ ..
Other (Specify in notes, e.g., G ET A,
union or prof, register, e tc .) .........

Other (Specify) . . O

hours or more a week at this job?

than 35 hours a week?

(Skip to

no def. recall date)

or slack work?

G

G

(

(30 days or more or

O

Placed or answered ads.....................

22C2)

Indefinite layoff

,~
^

friends or relatives. . O

Temporary layoff

1 or 5 (Go to 24A)

24A. When did . . . last work for pay at a
regular job or business, either full- or
part-time?

employer directly . .

O

Labor dispute. . .

(Go to 20C)

2, 3. 4, 6 , 7 or 8 (End questions)

O

(Go to 24)

Within past 12 months
Checked
wjth _

O

such as illness, holiday

O

C.

methods used; do not read list.)

Bad weather. . .

20D. Did . . . lose any time or

20C. Does. . . USUALLY work 35

No

work LAST WEEK?

20B. INTERVIEW ER

WEEK for any reason

No

:

pvt. employ, agency

take any time o ff LAST

O

Yes

O

Looking for work ......... .. . . LK

Yes

O

I

O

,
--------

(Mark one circle only)

Yes O
No
(Go to 22) 22A. What has. . . been doing in the last
__________
4 weeks to find work? (Mark all
21 A. Why w as. . . absent from

Own illness.........

at all jobs?
Working (Skip to 2 0 A ) ___ WK

24. INTE RV IE W ER CHECK ITEM
Unit in rotation group:

22. ( I f L K in 19, Skip to 22A.)

LAST WEEK, not counting

Other (Specify in notes) ............
Don't know

.....................................

(Month)

One to five years ago ..........................
More than 5 years ago

_

.......................

24E. Does. . . intend to look for work of any
kind in the next 12 months?

o
Q

Nev. worked full-time 2 wks or more
Never worked at a l l ..............................

It depends (Specify m notes)

G
O
0

(SKIP to 23. I f layo ff entered in 21 A, enter

N o ...................................

G

job, either full or part time, from which laid
off. Else enter last full time civilian job
lasting 2 weeks or more, or "never worked.")

Y e s ........................................

Don't k n o w .........................
( I f entry in 24B, describe job in 23)

23. DESCRIPTION OF JOB OR BUSINESS
23A. For whom did . . . work? (Name o f company, business, organization or other employer.)

23E. Was this person
An employee of PRIVATE Co.,
bus., or individual for wages, salary or comm. . . .

T V and radio mfg., retail shoe store, State Labor Dept., farm.)

23C. What kind of work was . . . dping? (For example: electrical engineer, stock clerk, typist, farmer.)

P
F

G
O

A LOCAL government e m ployee................................... L

( For example:

A FEDERAL government employee..............................

A STATE government employee..................................... S

23B. What kind of business or industry is this?

O

O

Self-ernpl. in OWN bus., prof, practice, or farm

f Y e s ................... I
Is the business incorporated? <
,
\ No (or farm) . . SE

O
G

23D. What were . . ,'s most important activities or duties? (For example: types, keeps account books, files, sells cars, operates
printing press, finishes concrete.)




Working W ITHO UT PAY in fam. bus. or f a r m ......... WP
NEVER W O R K E D ....................................................... NEV

7
1

O
O

2. To be counted as unemployed, a person must be
currently available for work (except for temporary
illness). In the past, there was no test of current
availability. The revision primarily affected the classi­
fication of students who began seeking work during
the school year, but were not available to begin work
until the end of the term. Previously, they were in­
cluded in the unemployed; now they are classified as
not in the labor force.
3. To be counted as unemployed, a person must have re­
ported a specific jobseeking activity (applying to an
employer, going to a private or public employment
agency, answering a want ad) within the past 4 weeks.
(An exception is made for persons waiting to start a
new job in 30 days or waiting to be recalled from lay­
off.) Formerly, the labor force survey questionnaire
was ambiguous as to the time period for jobseeking,
and there was no specific question regarding methods
of looking for work. Persons who would have looked
for work except for the belief that no work was avail­
able-discouraged workers— previously theoreti­
were
cally included in the unemployed but are now classi­
fied as not in the labor force.
4. Persons with a job are classified as employed, even if
they were absent from their jobs during the survey
week and looking for other jobs. Before, persons
absent from work because of strikes, bad weather,
etc., but looking for other jobs were counted as un­
employed.
The removal of 14- and 15-year-olds from the labor
force survey reduced employment by 1 million and unem­
ployment by 60,000, but had no measurable effect on the
unemployment rate. Except for raising the lower age limit
of the CPS coverage, the historical data were not revised to
take into account the other changes in the survey since the
differences between the old and new series were on the
borderline of statistical significance. In only a few detailed
series were there significant differences between the two
surveys. However, it was not considered technically feasible
to revise any of the historical statistics on the basis of a
single year of data.

8th day of the month. All interviewing, either by personal
visit or telephone call, is done by trained interviewers.
In the CPS, unemployed persons include those who
did not work at all during the survey week, were looking
for work, and were available for working during the refer­
ence period except for temporary illness. Those who had
made specific efforts to find work within the preceding 4week period, such as by registering at a public or private
employment agency, writing letters of application, canvas­
sing for work, being on a union or professional register,etc.,
are considered to be looking for work. Also included as
unemployed are those who did not work at all during the
survey week, were available for work, and (a) were wait­
ing to be called back to a job from which they had been
laid off, or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or
salary job scheduled to start within the following 30 days.
Full-time students looking for part-time work are counted
as unemployed if they meet the above criteria.
Although there have been improvements in measure­
ment techniques, the concepts of employment and un­
employment have remained essentially the same since the
initiation of the national sample survey in 1940. Two minor
changes have been made in the concepts and definitions
used in determining labor force status. The first change oc­
curred in 1957. As a result of a comprehensive interagency
review of the employment and unemployment data, two
groups which had been previously classified as “employed,
with a job but not at work,” were reclassified as unem­
ployed. These two groups were (1) persons who were laid
off for a definite period of less than 30 days (persons on
layoff for 30 days or longer were already classified as un­
employed), (2) persons waiting to report to a new wage or
salary job scheduled to begin within 30 days, except for
those attending school during the survey week, who are
classified as not in the labor force. When these two groups
were reclassified, data for all major labor force components
were adjusted to the new definition for every month back
to January 1947.
The second change in the definitions of employment
and unemployment occurred in 1967, following the rec­
ommendations of the President’s Committee to Appraise
Employment and Unemployment Statistics (the Gordon
Committee). The Gordon Committee recommended that
more information be gathered and published on partici­
pants in the labor force and that labor force concepts be
clarified. After more than a year of testing the new defi­
nitions clarifying labor force survey concepts, the labor
force survey questionnaire was revised in January 1967.
The principal changes in the survey were:1

Labor force

According to CPS definitions, the civilian labor force
comprises all civilians 16 years of age and over classified as
either unemployed or employed. The total labor force in­
cludes, in addition, members of the Armed Forces stationed
either in the United States or abroad. Information on the
size of the Armed Forces is obtained from official records
of the Department of Defense.
The definition of the unemployed was discussed
above. The employed comprise (1) all those who, during
the survey week, did any work at all as paid employees, or
in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or
who worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in a fam­
ily-operated enterprise and (2) all those who did not work
but had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily
absent due to illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-manage­
ment dispute, or various personal reasons-whether or not
they were seeking other jobs.

1. The lower age limit on employment, unemployment,
and other labor force concepts was raised from 14 to
16 years. This change reflects the fact that most 14and 15-year-olds are barred from most occupations
by child labor laws. Historical data were revised as far
as possible to provide a consistent series based on the
population 16 years of age and over.



72

tions for unemployment insurance benefits, registrations
for employment at Canadian Manpower Centres, and labor
The unemployment rate represents the number of un­ force surveys are all available on a monthly basis. Following
employed as a percent of the civilian labor force. This mea­ the report of a ministerial committee on unemployment
sure is also computed for various worker groups by sex, statistics in August 1960, the results of the labor force sur­
age, race, industry, occupation, etc., and for combinations vey have been regarded as the “official” Canadian unem­
of these characteristics.
ployment series. No adjustments have been made in the
official Canadian data since they are very close in concept
to the U.S. figures.
Quarterly and monthly estimates
Unemployment rate

For the United States, the seasonally adjusted quar­
terly and monthly unemployment rates are those published
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its monthly publication,
Employment and Earnings. At the beginning of each calen­
dar year, the BLS revises the seasonal adjustment factors
for unemployment and other labor force series from the
CPS to take into account data from the previous year. Until
full-year data are available, the seasonal adjustment factors
are based on data through the prior year.
Since 1973, the Census Bureau’s X-l 1 method1 has
been used to seasonally adjust the labor force data. For
most series, the computation is based upon the most recent
10-year period. Prior to 1975, BLS assumed that the magni­
tude of the seasonal increase or decrease was proportional
to the level of the series and, therefore, used the multi­
plicative version of the X -ll program exclusively in adjust­
ing the employment and unemployment series. It was
found that this procedure did not adequately allow for
changes in seasonal patterns during periods of sharply
changing unemployment. This problem was highlighted in
May-June 1975 when large numbers of teenagers left school
and entered the labor force. Since this flow tends to be
fairly constant and relatively independent of the level of
joblessness in any year, the additive option of the X-l 1 was
better suited to seasonally adjust the teenage unemploy­
ment series. Consequently, BLS revised its seasonal adjust­
ment procedures. Currently, seasonality for teenage un­
employment and for other unemployment series of which
teenagers are the primary components are adjusted using
the additive procedure of the X-l 1 method. All other
series are adjusted using the multiplicative procedure.
After the components of a series are seasonally ad­
justed, the values are aggregated to provide seasonally ad­
justed values for other series. For example, the unemploy­
ment rate for all civilian workers is derived by dividing the
estimate of total unemployment (the sum of 4 seasonally
adjusted age-sex components) by the civilian labor force
(the sum of 12 seasonally adjusted age-sex components).
Canada

Canada has three sources of unemployment statistics,
only one of which is widely used. Data based on registra1For a detailed description of the X-l 1 method, see Technical
Paper No. 15, The X -ll Variant of the Census Method II Seasonal
Adjustment Program, by Julius Shiskin, Alan Young, and John
Musgrave, 1967 revision (Bureau of the Census, 1967).



73

Unemployment

Registered unemployed. Canada has two series of registered
unemployed statistics. The first consists of monthly counts
of unemployment insurance claimants and beneficiaries.
The second, and less widely used series, is a count of regis­
trations for employment at the Canada Manpower Centres
(CMC). Most persons filing a claim for unemployment in­
surance benefits are requested to register with CMC. CMC
receives notices of vacancies from employers all across the
country and tries to match registrants with vacancies. No
unemployment rates are published based on these admini­
strative data.
Data on unemployment claimants and beneficiaries
are published monthly by Statistics Canada in the Statisti­
cal Report on the Operation o f the Unemployment Insur­
ance Act. Data on registrations at the Canada Manpower
Centres are published in Statistics Canada’s Canada Man­
power Review.
Labor force surveys. The labor force survey, conducted by
Statistics Canada, was introduced as a quarterly survey in
1945 and converted to a monthly survey in November 1952.
Statistics are published monthly in The Labour Force.
In 1972, a major project was begun to revise the sur­
vey to embrace a number of substantial statistical refine­
ments, to collect new data, and to ask more specific ques­
tions on labor force status. Throughout 1975, the former
and revised surveys were conducted in parallel to enable an
analysis of the differences between the two surveys over a
12-month period and to develop a revised historical series.
After the December 1975 survey, the old survey was dis­
continued. The new Canadian survey is very close in con­
cepts to the United States survey; therefore, no adjustments
are required for comparability with U.S. definitions.
The reference period for the monthly labor force
survey is usually the week containing the 15th of the month.
All interviewing, either by telephone call or personal visit,
takes place the following week, The survey is currently
based on a sample of approximately 55,000 households.
The sample was designed to represent all persons 14 years
of age and over residing in Canada, except for residents of
the Yukon and Northwest Territories, persons living on In­
dian Reserves, inmates of institutions, and full-time mem­
bers of the Armed Forces. The number of persons excluded
amounts to approximately 2 percent of the population 14

Canadian Survey Questionnaire Used Prior to 19 76

LABOUR FORCE SCHEDULE - Complete a schedule for every membei of the household 14 years of age or ov*»r.

1. Primary Sampling Unit_____

2 . Segment Number

J . Listing Number______

4 . Line No.

=3==

r 0 :r

r:f r:

2 --

-O '-

=3--

-0-=

:-l --

- A - -

zz& z

zz& z

r 3 r:

- n - -

zz^zz

-2 ”

=3”

- A

"

ZZQZZ

ZZ&ZZ

=7==

ZZQZZ

Z ^ zz

z^ zz

.^ r.z

"

-- I"

- A

zz$zz

zz& z

z z r-z

ZZQZZ

zzQzz

=«==

ZZ$Z2

z^ zz

zz& z

ZZQZZ

- 2 '-

=3==

ZZQZ

-3 ^

ZZQZZ

ZZZJZZ

-ZQZZ

=3==

=«==

zzr-z

-Q r--

ZZQZZ

zz#:

ZZQZZ

z^ r.z

zzQzz

-ZQZ

-T£-

z z \z z

ZZ2ZZ

19. To what class of worker did this person belong?
WORKED FOR OTHERS
Paid
worker

Without
paid help

ZZfZZ

-Q z-

z^zz

-A-

=3-=

ZQ-Z

z?zz

-Q zz

ZQZZ

FOR 1-34 HOURS IN 13 OR "J" IN 11 OR 12 ASK

-QZZ

z? zz

-QZZ

-Q -Z

20. Does this person usually work 35 hours or more at his present job?

ZQZZ

z? zz

-Q zz

-Q zz

-x yz

==l==

-2 --

-0==

z z \z z

-2 --

^3"

ZZ#

z:Ozz

2Z\ ZZ

z^ zz

=3-

-A -

-3

Line Num ber

=3~

zz#

2"
: 3 ::

=3==

-QZZ

ZZfZZ

-Q -Z

ZZQZZ

ZZ#.

z^ zz

ZQZZ

ZZf-Z

-Q --

Yas

No

21. IF " N O " IN
20 ASK

-ZQZ

| ASK 23 l

Would this person prefer to work 35 hours or more?

'- P
No

Yes

22. IF "Y E S " IN 21 ASK

^

—

8. Marital Status

Female

Male

With
paid help

ZZQZZ

Z2 - -

7. Sex

OWN BUSINESS, FARM OR PROFESSION

Unpaid
family worker

-3 --

-T --

-2 --

18. OCCUPATION What kind of work did this person do in this industry?

zz#

-O --

==
o=

17. IN D U STR Y In what kind of business or industry did this person work?

ZZQZ

-A =

: 2 :I

- :l "

name of firm, government agency or person

zzgzz

=3-"

- - I --

-O '-

-z& z

=3"

z& z

Listing Num ber

16. For whom did this person work?

-z& z

=2-

Segment Number

-t> -

-7=-

ZZQZZ

:2 r:

= >==
<

6 . Survey

_________ FOR "W", "L" OR "J" IN 11 OR 12 ASK____________

FOR O FFICE USE O N LY

Primary Sampling Unit
-O '
==!== :2 - :

5 . Surname______________________ Given name______________________

Single

Other
relative

Roomer
Boarder

Why doesn't this person usually work
35 hours or more each week?

Age or
physical
disability

Household
responsibilities

Other

Married

►

Went
to
school

Other
(Specify below)------_

9. Relationship to Head of Household
Head

Wife

Son or
daughter

Son-in-law
Daughter-in-law

Employee

Other

IF "YES" IN 20 OR "J" IN 11 OR 12 ASK
2 3 . W hy did this person w ork less than the usual num ber o f hours last week?

10. Age

ZQZZ
z X>zz

;:l - “
==!==

=2==
=2==

:3 "
:3 "

z^ zz

z-#z
zz#

ZQZZ

z^ zz

ZQZZ

-Q z -

zir-z

-Q z z

--Q Z
-QZZ

Worked
=W==

-L '-

ZZJZZ

Permanently
unable
to work

Kept
house

-M"

Z^JZZ

Went Retired or
voluntarily
to
Other
idle
school

z^ zz

DTfF
Worked

12. SECONDARY A C T IV IT Y
--

ZtyZZ

Did this person do anything else last week?
Looked

tor

Worked

=W==

work

z^ zz

Had
a job
but not
at work

Kept
house

z - j- z

Went Retired or
to
voluntarily
school
idle
Other

=«==

=3”

Did
nothing
else

Worked

FOR "W"JN 11 OR 12 ASK

z z \z z

zyzz

zQ zz

z^ zz

zQ zz

z z \z z

.Q z z

zQ zz

z-Azz

zQ zz

1 -3

4 -6




7 -1 2

1 3 -1 8

19 o r more

Looked
for
work

ZZLZZ

Had
a job
but not
et work

ZZJZZ

Looked
for
work

z± zz

Had
a job
but not
at work

z z jzz

26. Was this person interviewed?

z:6 ^ :

- 7 - -

::Q zz

FO R " L " IN 11 OR 12 ASK
14. For how many months has this person been looking
for work?
U nder !

Found
job
during
week

::::: :::::

Temporary
layoff
-----

Working Other
short- (Specify
time
above)
: : : : ::

Z^fZZ

ZZQZZ

ZQZZ

15. Did this person look
for full time or part
time work last week?
Pull time

Part time

74

Permanently
unable
to work

-V -

Kept
house

z^ p z

Went Retired or
to
voluntarily
Other
school
idle

-3 ”

ZZ&Z

DTH=

25. SECO NDARY A C T IV IT Y
Did this person do anything else that week?

DTIF

13. How many hours did this person work last week?

z& z

-- --- :::::

Lost
job
during
week

24. MAJOR A C T IV IT Y
What was this person doing the week ending......... ....?

What did this person do mostly last week?

_

--- ---

Labour
dispute

ACTIVITY LAST MONTH

11. MAJOR A C T IV IT Y
Had
Looked
a job
for
but not
work
at work

Illness

Bad
Public
weather Vacation holiday

Kept
house

Went Retired or
to
voluntarily
Other
school
idle
No

Yes

Did
nothing
else

Canadian Survey Questionnaire Used from 1976 Onward
Docket No. 2 1 ^
__
HflD page - iine No

sen

1Q

|

Survey dais 3

Gwen name

er~~~~

;

|

;

M
o

:

*Authority Act Chapter 18,
Statute*, of Canada 1970 - /1 - 72.’

A

v’

1

BO1

010 . . . DO ANY WOflK AT ALL LAST WEEK" 3 0
{not counting work around th# houao)?
^

LAST WEEK, DID . . . HAVE A JOB AT WHICH
KE/SHE DID NOT WORK?
Ye* 1
Go to 33
No2

Yea

LAST WEEK, WD~ . HAVE A JOB TO START
ay j
l
AT A rvcciiaLia-rtt r* a
DEFINITE DATE IN THE FUTURE?

’O

No2

o*

to 30

3 1

Perm. unaMe to work 3 ^ 3
¥ T ' w i T 7 7 7 H A ^ m o r e ~t h a n o n e
* WEEK?
No 2 O

Ye* ?0

"

to
jo b la st

Gc *°

13

ves 1 ( 3

OO

1 9

W AS THIS A RESULT O f CHANGING
EMPLOYERS LAST WEEK?
.
2
Ye* ’ ( J
No 20

4 3

HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK DOES
USUALLY WORK AT HIS/HER:
{Mam) JOB?

[T

4

1 5

3 3

34 o *
m
WEEK?

"| 90 to

WHAT IS THE REASON . , . USUALLY WORKS
LESS THAN 30 HO W S PER WEEK?
3 5
^
€nter

□

* m

%3

LAST WEEK, HOW MANY HOURS DID . . . LOSE
* W OR TAKE OFF FROM WORK FOR ANY REASON 3 7
SUCH AS ILLNESS, HOLIDAY, OR LAYOFF?
{Front ai! j o b s } _ ____
_
V none enter 00 and

1 7

1 3

:

JlO
B?

IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS, HAS
ANOTHER JOB?

.

157

O g° to71

•o

4 1

00 *° 70

• IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS WHAT HAS
WORK? M ark alt methods reported

. DONE TO FIND

Nothing

For each method given ask

, LAST._________________ ?
(Repeat method)

* o - ••”o T

go to 40

C)

No

PRIVATE employment AGENCY .

Go to 71

■

□ □

Placed or snswered ADS..

DESCRIPTION OF MAIN JOB OR BUSINESS

70

•

!o

71 H S
A
Yes

■ o

r

'I___ L

_L_

WHAT WAS . . . DOING IMMEDIATELY BEFORE HE/SHE
STARTED TO LOOK FOR WORK? FOR EXAMPLE, WORKING,
KEEPING HOUSE. GOING TO SCHOOL
OR SOMETHING ELSE

5 3

UP TO THE END OF LAST WEEK. HOW MANY WEEKS HAS
. . . BEEN LOOKING FOR WORK?
j....- j ...- j

0 0

HAS . . . BEEN LOOKING FOR A JOB TO LAST FOR LESS
THAN 6 MONTHS, OR, MORE THAN 6 MONTHS?

“Or

go to 72 through 7 8 and check that the information is complete and correct

. CHANGED EMPLOYERS SINCE LAST MONTH?

O

1 /""’A Enter new information for
W
7 2 through 7 8

7 2

WHOM DID . . . WORK?

Check Chat information in 7 2 through 7 8 is
$
complete and correct
o

IName o f business, government dept or agency, or person)

loss than 6 months fin d 6 mos.) ’ O

------! ' 5 1
jj

‘-Q L

□

IF sro

1

* Otherwise

START WORKING FOR THIS EMPLOYER?

N°[]i

T

for]

change

_L

5 3
I f month unknown

2

WAS THERE ANY REASON WHY
WORK LAST WEEK?

enter - in month

7 4 WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS. INDUSTRY OR SERVICE WAS THIS?

(Give fuU description

5 4

e.g„

paper-box manufacturing, retail shoe stone, municipal board o f educationi

0 0

*"QL

‘O

sro

/""'v
V j go to 64

If ”1 week ago~ for any method-------in 8 7

[_

WAS THERE ANY REASON WHY
JOB LAST WEEK?

Q lj*i*-**-~

□
□

DID NOT LOOK FOR

Enter coda

COULD NOT TAKE A
Enter code end
go to 7 0

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY
LAST WEEK. WAS . , . ENROLLED IN A SCHOOL. COLLEGE,
OR UNIVERSITY?
^
^

v®1O H 2O G to®
s
o
o °

change (

0 1

7 5 WHAT KIND OF WORK WAS . . . DOING?

WAS . . . ENROLLED AS A FULL-TIME OR A PART-TIME
STUDENT?
Ftdl- 1 /~ \
Part 2

82

E ">
'

More than 6 months

ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS OF WORK PER WEEK
---- -------------HAS . . . BEEN
LOOKING FOR?

1 I A 9 INTERVIEW ER CHECK ITEM :

changa j—

73'

-

5 3
go to 8 0

* i f last worked b efo re.................................. ............. ..
* Otherwise

0

• 0 ... - • n

IN TER VIEW ER CHECK ITE M :

* I f “No" inevar worked) in 6 0

-

. . . Q

EMPLOYERS directly .

Enter codeia)
end go to 71

0 -0

‘O
*o“O - - a
■ O'

U N IO N ..................... ................

FRIENDS or relatives .

□

ago (exci.

Method

go to 88

WHAT HAS . . . DONE IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS
TO FIND ANOTHER JOB?

inter codefs)
and go to 71

Go to 63

• IN THE PAST # WEEKS HAS . . DONE ANYTHING ELSE
TO FIND WORK? Mark all other methods reported

IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS, HAS . . . LOOKED FOR
ANOTHER JOB?

■ o

\ _ J go to 80

LOOKED FOR WORK?

No 2 0

IN TERVIEW ER CHECK IT E M :

Yes

2 ( j WHAT HAS . . . DONE IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS
W TO RND ANOTHER JOB?

Y«* ’ Q

• WHEN DtO .

• Otherwise 2

4 0

1 _
10

IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS HAS . .

5 0

UP TO THE END OF LAST WEEK, HOW MANY
WEEKS HAS . . . BEEN CONTINUOUSLY ABSENT
FROM WORK?
r —-r -— 1

If coda 5 (layoff) in 33 ’ O

LOOKED FOR

Enter code

• Otherwise 2 £ ) go to 89

WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON FOR LOSING 3 © IS . . . GETTING ANY WAGES OR SALARY FOR
THESE HOURS?
r___ ,
r
ANY OF THE TIME OFF LAST WEEK?
| J
enter coda
Yes 1Q
No 2 Q

39

j |

INTERVIEW ER CHECK ITEM :
• if “pertr. unable to war*" in

, te

HOW MANY HOURS DID . . . ACTUALLY WORK
LAST WEEK AT HIS/HER:

!4im 2Q
e

’O

>

WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON WHY . . . LEFT THAT

5 5

30 or more
go to 37

WHAT IS THE REASON . . USUALLY WORKS
LESS THAN 30 HOURS PER
I-----1 , ,
.
WEEK?
[ _ J Bnt9r ' * *

"1 l !
IQ

□
5 4

2O

Other jobs?
3 5

S 8 ::

ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK DID . . . WORK
AT THAT JOB?

(Main) JOB?

: enter00

i include paid end unpaid
tuna at ail jobs)

INTERVIEW ER CHECK ITE M :

> go to 32

Yas ’ O

/month unknown

-

* Otherwise................. "

HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK DOES .
USUALLY WORK AT HIS/HER:

LAST WEEK. HOW MANY HOURS O f OVERTIME
OR EXTRA HOURS DID . . . WORK?

m

U;

4

• if lest worked before j

Co to SO

HAVE MORE THAN ONE JOB LAST

coda

,

[

. ABSENT FROM WORK LAST 5 3
, enter coda
j end If code

WHY WAS .
WEEK?

LAST WORK AT A JOB OR BUSINESS?

t ( 3 G o to SO

m

jo

'O

51
52

WHAT KIND OF SCHOOL WAS THIS?

(Give fuH description: e.g., posting invoices,

time

selling shoes, teaching primary school)

n

V -/

time

L>
INFORMATION SOURCE
change

\

I




77

Main job
I

|

| |
____

N0 O
change

1

I

N odi

\Enter

G | _ jcode
?!l) _

the above information

| ( |

Last
interview 1

Other job

1

Class of worker:

Q

70

05

. . . EVER WORKED?
i ”

COUNTING FROM THE END OF LAST WEEK.
iN HOW MANY WEEKS WILL . . . START TO
WORK AT HIS/HER NEW JOB?

If total
30 or more

Other job*? P 'l

Ho

FORM NO.

change

_| jEnter
! _ j code
_

75

\

Q1

1

Tha
|
interview 1

I

?

Was this information provided over the telephone
Yes 1

O

No 2 O

'— )

years of age and over. Although the revised labor force sur­
vey collects data on persons 14 years of age and over, the
official labor force and unemployment data refer to persons
15 years of age and over.
Since compulsory education ends at age 15 or 16 in
Canada, no adjustment is necessary. In the former labor
force survey, the official lower age limit was 14. Under the
former survey, Canadian statistics were adjusted by BLS to
exclude the 14-year-olds.
The unemployed include all persons who, during the
reference week, were in any of the following categories:
(1) Without work and had actively looked for work in the
past 4 weeks and available for work; (2) been on layoff for
6 months or less and were available for work; or (3) had not
actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks but had a new
job to start in 4 weeks or less and were available for work.
In order to determine labor force status, the inter­
viewer asks a series of specific, direct questions designed to
provide precise and comprehensive information about labor
force activities and characteristics. The interviewer asks,
“Did . . . do any work at all last week, not counting work
around the house?”; “Last week, did . . . have a job at
which he/she did not work?”; “In the past four weeks what
has . . . done to find work?”; “Was there any reason why
. . . could not take a job last week?” In the former survey,
more general questions were asked: “What did . .. do mostly
last week?”; “Did . . . do anything else last week?” While
these questions led to a straightforward distinction among
persons who are employed, unemployed, or not in the labor
force, they were not suited for detailed probing, particu­
larly on the characteristics of persons near the margins of
the three basic labor force categories.
Specific questions regarding availability for work in
the reference week are now asked and some persons who
were unemployed under the old survey would not have met
the availability requirements of the revised survey. For ex­
ample, full-time students looking for full-time work are
automatically considered not available for work in the ref­
erence week according to the revised labor force survey.
However, full-time students seeking part-time work are re­
garded as available (unless they report otherwise) and, if
the other criteria are met, are included among the unem­
ployed.
Persons on layoff with instructions to return to work
within 30 days of the layoff—the temporarily laid off—
were
classified as unemployed in the former survey. Ail others
on layoff were classified as unemployed if they stated that
they would have looked for work in the reference week ex­
cept that they expected to be recalled to their former jobs.
However, no questions on this point were asked of these
persons and, unless they had volunteered the information
that they expected to be recalled, they were classified as
not in the labor force.
In the revised survey, persons on layoff for less than
26 weeks are classified as unemployed. Those who have
been laid off for more than 26 weeks are classified as un­



76

employed if they looked for work in the previous 4 weeks.
Otherwise, they are classified as not in the labor force. In
both surveys then, persons on layoff expecting to return to
work are classified as unemployed. The distinguishing fea­
ture is that the revised survey is able to identify persons on
layoff with greater precision due to direct questioning, and
to record additional information about such persons, such
as the duration of the layoff. In the United States, there is
no time limit after which laid-off workers waiting to be re­
called to work must look for another job to be counted as
unemployed.
Canadians waiting to start a new job were not iden­
tified separately in the former survey, and, as a result, gen­
erally were classified as unemployed or not in the labor
force, depending on whether or not they reported that they
were looking for work. A small number could also have
been classified as employed and included among the “had a
job but not at work” category. In the revised survey, they
are unemployed if their new job is to start within 4 weeks
of the end of the reference period. If the job is to start in
more than 4 weeks from the end of the reference period,
they are classified as unemployed only if they also looked
for work. This is similar to the U.S. practice.
Persons without jobs who stated they would have
looked for work except for certain conditions—discouraged
workers— formerly classified as unemployed. However,
were
there was no specific question on this point, and the infor­
mation on discouragement had to be volunteered. In the re­
vised survey and in the United States survey, discouraged
workers are considered as not in the labor force.
On the basis of these more detailed questions, aggre­
gate unemployment rates were revised downward slightly.
In 1975, the jobless rate was revised from 7.0 percent to
6.9 percent. While the total difference was slight, there
were substantial differences in the estimates by sex and
region. In the revised survey, unemployment was signifi­
cantly higher for women and lower for men. In 1975, the
unemployment rate for women was 6.4 percent according
to the old survey and 8.1 percent according to the new sur­
vey. Female joblessness was formerly understated since
women tended to respond to the question,“What did . . .
do mostly last week?” in terms of household or other non­
labor force activities. The more specific wording of the re­
vised questionnaire revealed that many of these women
were unemployed.
Lower unemployment estimates for men (6.2 percent
versus 7.4 percent in 1975, with differences concentrated
in winter and spring), result mainly from differences in the
manner in which the new survey identifies and classifies
persons who have not actively sought work.
Labor force

The labor force is composed of all persons who, dur­
ing the reference week, were employed or unemployed. The

employed in €anada include all persons who, during the
reference week, were in any of the following categories:
(1) Did any work for pay or profit; (2) did any unpaid fam­
ily work which contributed directly to the operation of a
farm, business, or professional practice owned or operated
by a related member of the household; or (3) had a job but
were not at work due to illness, disability, personal or fam­
ily responsibilities, bad weather, labor dispute, or vacation.
With the introduction of the current labor force sur­
vey, the methods used to measure employment and un­
employment were revised, although the concepts remained
essentially the same. These revisions have brought the Can­
adian questionnaire closer to that of the United States.
There were a few differences between the former Canadian
survey and the United States survey, but most have dis­
appeared with the introduction of the revised Canadian
survey„ Under the old survey, to be counted as employed,
Canadian farm housewives had to work more than 20
hours in the survey week, but there was no minimum of
hours worked for other unpaid family workers. The revised
survey, using more specific questions to identify work ac­
tivities, contains no restrictions on farm housewives or
other unpaid family workers. In the United States, unpaid
family workers must work 15 hours or more during the
survey week to be counted as employed. However, the
difference in treatment of unpaid family workers working
less than 15 hours is probably insignificant.
In the former Canadian survey, a small number of
persons with a job but who were not at work and also looked
for work in the reference week were classified as unem­
ployed. In the revised survey, as in the U.S, survey, working
takes precedence over looking for work. Thus, these per­
sons are now classified as employed.
The revisions of the survey resulted in slightly higher
employment estimates for women of all age groups (4.4
percent) and men 15 to 24 years (2.8 percent) due to more
precise identification of employment activities. No changes
were made to employment estimates for men 25 years of
age and over.
Unemployment rate

Annual unemployment rates for Canada are calcu­
lated by averaging the results of the monthly labor force
surveys. From 1966 onward, unemployment rates based on
the revised definitions of unemployment and employment
have been estimated by Statistics Canada. The rates for
1959-65, however, have not been revised. Labor market
conditions were believed to be too different in this earlier
period to make estimates based on 1975 relationships.
Quarterly and monthly estimates

For Canada, no adjustments are necessary to the
labor force survey data for comparability with U.S. defini­



77

tions. The seasonally adjusted jobless rates are those pub­
lished by Statistics Canada in its monthly publication, The
Labour Force.
Statistics Canada uses the X-l 1 Variant of the U.S.
Bureau of the Census Method II seasonal adjustment pro­
gram to seasonally adjust the labor force survey data. The
multiplicative version is used for some series, the additive
version for other series. Statistics Canada has also experi­
mented with a modification of the X-l 1, known as Statis­
tics Canada X-ll-ARIMA (auto-regressive integrated mov­
ing average). Seasonally adjusted estimates of the labor
force, employed, and unemployed are derived by the sum­
mation of the appropriate series.
Seasonally adjusted figures have been calculated on a
current basis since January 1975; the seasonal adjustment
program is run each month using data up to and including
the most recent month. At the end of the calendar year,
the seasonally adjusted figures are revised.
Australia

Australia has two sources of unemployment sta­
tistics, both of which are widely used. Data based upon
registrations at employment offices are available on a
monthly basis. A quarterly labor force survey, begun in
1964, provides unemployment data in close conformity
with U.S. concepts. Since about 1970, the statistics from
the quarterly survey have been regarded as the “official”
Australian unemployment series by the International
Labour Office. Registrations statistics are released about
2 weeks before publication of the survey data. In addi­
tion, because the registrations statistics are on a monthly
basis, they are still used as current labor market indicators
in Australia.
Unemployment

Registered unemployed. These statistics comprise all
persons who were still registered with the Commonwealth
Employment Service (CES) on the Friday nearest the end
of the month, who claimed when registering that they were
not employed, and who were seeking full-time employment,
i.e., 35 hours or more per week. They include persons re­
ferred to employers but whose employment was still un­
confirmed, and persons who had recently obtained employ
ment without notifying the CES. The statistics are pub­
lished by the Department of Employment and Industrial
Relations in the Monthly Review o f the Employment Situa­
tion.
Separate figures are published for recipients of un­
employment benefits. Such benefits are payable only to
persons of limited means. All recipients of benefits must
complete a weekly statement of income, and benefits are
reduced by other income over a specified low level. Re­
cipients of unemployment benefits must also have at least
1 year of residence in Australia immediately before un-

Australian Population Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)
MOST OF LAST WEEK DID ....
WORK AT A JOB OR BUSINESS
OR DO SOMETHING ELSE?
Worked (Go

to Q. 10)

15.

Leave or holiday
....

21

WHY WAS .... AWAY FROM
WORK LAST WEEK?
.................[~ J 1

CZ
Own illness or injury

IF .... HAD FOUND WORK IS
THERE ANY REASON WHY ....
COULD NOT HAVE STARTFD
LAST WEEK?
Yes -

.... F j 2

Had a job but not at work
[
(exclude waiting fo start new job)

Lost job m week

.................f ~ l 3

Looking for work

Began job in week

own temporary
illness or injury

.................Q j 4

" child care problems
................

- going to school
Kept house
Went to school

......................

Bad weather, breakdown, e t c .Q j 5

......................

Laid o ff or on short time:
Economic reasons
....

Retired or voluntarily inactive

Other (

Specify on field query

Fj8

On s t r ik e ..................................... Q

...................................

(Specify on field
query form)

If Q. 10 not asked and box 5, 6, 7,
8 or 9 above, go to Q. 22B;
otherwise go to Q. 23.

SD only : Institutionalised
..
DID .... DO ANY PAID WORK AT
ALL LAST WEEK OR WORK WITH­
OUT PAY IN A FAMILY BUSINESS?

["

other reasons

9

Note :

(No more questions)

f

. preferred to start
after survey week

.. F J 7
. .

made arrangements to
start a new job;
. preferred to start
in survey week

6

Industrial dispute PE

(No more questions)

form)

i

Industrial dispute NPE

Permanently unable to work
....

-

No

No Qs 16 and 17
22A.

Yes
No
10.

(Go to Q .ll)

(Ask Q. 19)
No (No more questions)

WEEKS AGO
Note:

19

(Ask Q.12)
No (Go to Q. 18)
................

20.

□ »

(Ask Q. 14)
No ( / / Q. 10 not asked, go to
Q.15; otherwise, go to Q.23)
WHY DOESN’T .... WORK
LONGER?

23.

WHAT WAS .... OCCUPATION
LAST WEEK?

24.

FOR WHOM DID .... WORK LAST
WEEK? (Name/Full Address)

25.

IN WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS
OR INDUSTRY DID .... WORK
LAST WEEK?

26.

LAST WEEK DID .... WORK

. . . . . . . .[ J 13

WHEN LOOKING FOR WORK
DURING THE PAST FOUR
WEEKS WAS .... REGISTERED WITH
THE COMMONWEALTH
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
OR OTHER EMPLOYMENT
AGENCY?

□

DID .... APPLY TO
PROSPECTIVE
EMPLOYERS IN PERSON?

I

DID .... APPLY BY POST
OR TELEPHONE?

Yes Q

J 12

....................

Part-time work

Yes □

DOES .... USUALLY WORK
LESS THAN 35 HOURS AT
. PRESENT JOB(S)?

HAS .... BEEN LOOKING FOR
FULL-TIME OR PART-TIME
WORK DURING THE PAST
FOUR WEEKS?
Full-time work

EVEN THOUGH .... DID NOT
WORK LAST WEEK, DID ....
HAVE ANY JOB, BUSINESS
(OR FARM)?

D ID .... DO ANYTHING
ELSE?
Active

.............................

Non-active

................

(Specify on field query
fo rm ) ..........................

Q

'

2
I
[ j 3

D
FOR AN EMPLOYER FOR
WAGES, SALARY, KIND
E T C ? ..........................................
IN OWtf BUSINESS WITH EMPLOYEES?

..

WITH NO EMPLOYEES?

No w o r k .................................

WITHOUT PAY IN FAMILY
B U S IN E S S ? .............

. . . .

Note:

If Q. 10 not asked, ask Q 15;
otherwise, go to Q.23.




m

Record whole weeks to end of survey
week. If box 5, 6. 7 or 8 in Q.15
probe whether period 4 weeks or less;
recode if necessary.
Ask for last job in Q.23 to Q.26.

3"

HOURS

(If "Had a job but not at work ”
in Q.8, ask Q 12j

All other reasons

WHEN WAS .... LAID OFF/WHEN
DID .... GO ON STRIKE'.*

Yes □

If 01-34 hours, go to Q.12.
If 35 hours and over, r go to Q. 23
L

14.

22B.

HAS ... BEEN LOOKING FOR
WORK AT ANY TIME DURING
THE PAST FOUR WEEKS?

HOW MANY HOURS DID ....
WORK LAST WEEK AT ALL
JOBS, INCLUDING OVERTIME
AND EXCLUDING TIME OFF?
Note :

12.

WHEN DID .. BEGIN LOOKING
FOR WORK1
*

18. (If “Looked for work ” in Q.8, ask Q. 19)

....................

Never worked

78

employment or must intend to reside permanently in
Australia. Seasonal workers are not eligible for unemploy­
ment benefits.

Labor force surveys. The Australian labor force survey,

conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is
similar in concepts and definitions to the U.S. labor force
survey. Revisions in definitions in May 1976 have brought
the Australian survey closely in line with U.S. concepts.
Although there were some differences prior to these re­
visions, they are not believed to be important enough to
require adjustment. The Australian survey is conducted
quarterly, by means of personal interviews, in February,
May, August, and November. Until 1972, a 1-percent
sample of about 40,000 private dwellings and a sample of
other dwellings (hotels, motels, etc.) were taken. In 1972,
the sample was redesigned based on data from the 1971
Census of Population. The revised sample consists of about
30,000 private dwellings and a sample of nonprivate
dwellings which together represent a sample of two-thirds
of 1 percent of the population of Australia. Results of the
surveys are published by the Australian Bureau of Statis­
tics in The Labour Force.
Interviews are carried out during a period of 4 weeks,
so that there are 4 survey weeks in each o f the months to
which the survey relates. These 4 weeks are chosen so as to
fall within the limits of the calendar month or with mini­
mum encroachment into the adjacent months.
As of May 1976, unemployment estimates have been
based on the revised definition below. Unemployed persons
are now defined as all civilians aged 15 years and over who
either:

a. During the survey week did not work and did not
have a job, but could have taken one had it been
available, and had been looking for full-time or parttime work in the 4 weeks up to and including the sur­
vey week (including persons who would have been
prevented from taking a job in the survey week by
their own temporary illness or injury, or by their
having made arrangements to start in a new job after
the survey week which they would have preferred to
start in the survey week); or
b, were waiting to be called back to a job from which
they had been temporarily laid off without pay for
4 weeks or less (including the survey week).
The definition of unemployment prior to May 1976
differed in several respects from the above definition. First,
persons who would have been looking for work but had not
because they believed no work was available—“discouraged
workers”2-were included in the unemployed prior to May
1976. However, the Australian survey did not contain a
specific question on discouraged workers; such information
had to be volunteered by the respondent. Discouraged
workers are now excluded from the labor force. Second,
some persons classified as unemployed were not actually
2Called “discouraged jobseekers” in Australia.



79

able to take a job in the survey week. There is now a test
for current availability of jobseekers. Third, the period for
jobseeking activities for unemployed persons was limited to
the survey week. Now, a period of 4 weeks (including the
survey week) is allowed for jobseeking in order to classify
persons as unemployed.
Students actively seeking work are classified as un­
employed both in the old and revised surveys. Under the
old survey, special probing into the current availability of
students was made in the November survey (that is, at
the end of the school year).
Beginning in February 1975, questions were added
to the survey to ascertain the number of persons seeking
work during a 4-week period who could have taken a job in
the survey week. Evaluation o f the results of these new
questions led to the May 1976 revisions in definitions. Al­
though unemployment officially remained on the old defi­
nition from February 1975 through February 1976, data
were also published on the new basis for this period. There­
fore, BLS has made adjustments to the data going back to
Feburary 1975. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does
not intend to make historical revisions for the period prior
to February 1975. BLS has not made historical revisions
either. On an annual basis, the difference between the old
and new definitions in 1975 was very small-the old defi­
nitions produced an average unemployment rate of 4.3
percent; the new definitions raised the rate to 4.4 percent.
In several survey months, however, the difference was
wider, as indicated by the following tabulation:
Unemployment rate
Old definitions New definitions
February ............. . . . . .
M a y ...................... ...............
A u gu st................... .............
November . . . . . . .............

4.6
3.9
3.9
4.6

4.9
4.2
4.1
4.5

. . . . . .............

4.7

5.0

February

The unemployment rate for women was also significandy different: 5.7 percent on the old basis and 6.2 per­
cent on the new basis for 1975. The male rate was increased
only marginally, from 3.5 to 3.6 percent.
Labor force

The labor force, under survey definitions, comprises
all civilians 15 years of age or over who, during the survey
week, were employed or unemployed. Unemployment defi­
nitions were discussed above. Employed persons comprise
all who, during the survey week, (a) did any work for pay,
profit, commission, or payment in kind in a job or busi­
ness or on a farm (including employees, employers, and
self-employed persons); or (b) worked 15 hours or more
without pay in a family business or farm; or (c) had a job,
business, or farm but were not at work because of illness,
accident, leave, holiday, production holdup due to bad

weather, plant breakdown, etc., or because they were on
strike. These definitions are identical to U.S. definitions,
and no adjustments are required for comparability with
U.S. concepts.
In the 1971 population census, trainee teachers
(enrolled at government teachers’ colleges and in some
cases enrolled also at other institutions) were for the first
time classified as not in the labor force; since then they
have also been excluded from labor force estimates derived
from the Australian survey. Exclusion of these persons con­
stitutes a break in the series between May and August 1971;
the number of trainee teachers excluded from the labor
force in August amounted to 24,000. This makes no differ­
ence in the unemployment rate for Australia.
Unemployment rate

Annual unemployment rates for Australia have been
calculated by averaging the published data for February,
May, August, and November of each year. For 1975 on­
ward, as mentioned above, data based on the new definition
of unemployment have been used.
The Australian labor force survey was initiated in
1964. Unemployment rates for 1959 through 3963 are esti­
mates made by an Australian researcher based on linking
of the survey and registration statistics.3
Quarterly and monthly estimates

For Australia, no adjustments are necessary for com­
parability with U.S. definitions. The seasonally adjusted un­
employment rates are those published by the Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in their publication, The Labour
Force Survey. Since the Australian labor force survey is
conducted quarterly, no monthly estimates of joblessness
on the labor force survey basis are made.
Every year, the seasonally adjusted statistics are re­
vised to take into account the previous year’s data. The
ABS has adopted for its standard method of seasonal ad­
justment, the X-11Q (quarterly) Variant of the Census
Method II seasonal adjustment program of the U.S. Bureau
of the Census. Until 1974, a standard multiplicative adjust­
ment was used. This method assumes that the amplitude of
seasonal change is proportional to the level of the series.
Following the rapid rise in the level of unemployment in
1974, this proportional relationship apparently changed
substantially and the X-11Q method was unable to adapt
sufficiently. ABS made an estimate of the effect of the
change in the proportional relationship and applied prior
adjustment factors to the data before seasonally adjusting.
Therefore, the seasonal factors reflect one proportional re­
lationship up to 1974 and another relationship since then.
3 Barry Hughes, “Supply Constraints and Short-term Employ­
ment Functions: A Comment,” The Review o f Economics and
Statistics, Number 4,1971, p. 394.



80

Japan

The principal system of labor force statistics in Japan
was patterned after the American system and was installed
with the aid of American experts. Japanese statisticians
have subsequently introduced a number of modifications to
adapt the system better to Japanese needs.
The Japanese labor force survey has been conducted
monthly by the Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Prime
Minister, since September 1946, and currently comprises
a sample of about 76,000 persons residing in 33,000
households. This represents a sampling ratio of about 1
out of every 1,000 persons 15 years old and over. Results
are published by the Bureau of Statistics in the Monthly
Report on the Labour Force Survey.
Adjustment of Japanese labor force data to U.S. con­
cepts is based mainly on the monthly labor force survey. In
September 1967, the survey design was revised and ;.he
enumeration method changed from “self enumeration and
interview” to “self enumeration”—i.e., the labor force sur­
vey schedule is now filled in by the respondent rather than
the enumerator. The major data items have been revised
back to 1953 by Japanese authorities based on the new sur­
vey design.
Unemployment

The unemployed in the Japanese labor force survey
consist of all persons 15 years of age or over without jobs
who did not work at all during the survey week (the week
ending on the last day of each month) and who:
1. State that they actually sought work during the sur­
vey week; or
2. Were awaiting the results of previous employment
applications.
In the Japanese questionnaire, the question 4Was this
person engaged in work at all during the survey week?” has
eight possible answers. One of the following is checked by
the respondent:
1. Engaged mainly in work
2. Engaged partly in work besides attending school
3. Engaged partly in work besides home duties, etc.
4. Had a job but did not work
5. Had no job but seeking one
6. Attending school
7. Engaged in home duties
8. Others
Persons checking response number 5—“had no job
but seeking one”-are classified as unemployed. This re­
sponse is defined in the explanatory notes accompanying
the survey schedule as follows: “Refers to the person who
had no job but was actually seeking work by answering ad­
vertisements in the newspaper, applying at the Public Em­
ployment Security Office, etc. Also refers to the person
who is waiting for an answer to an application and is able to
take up a job immediately after he finds one.”

Japan

Labour Force Survey Schedule

Confidencial

Month____Year____
Bureau of Statistics
Office of the Prime
(For First month)
Minister
The statistical law, on which this survey is based, prohibits the use of the information
supplied by you for purposes other than strictly statistical. It is also forbidden that
enumerators and any other officials who may be engaged in the survey disclose what
is reported in the schedules. You are, therefore, kindly requested to provide inform­
ation frankly and accurately.
Designated Statistics
No. 30

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING NOTES BEFORE FILLING OUT
All members who usually live in your household
should be included in this schedule.
Persons who usually live in your household refer
to those who have been living, or are going to
live in your household for three months or more
as of the end of the month.
Persons to be included
* Family members
* Living-in employees
* Persons living in the family without paying
for room and for meals.
Persons who are temporarily absent from your
household for travelling or working elsewhere
shall be reported at their homes if their absent
period is less than three months, if they have
been, or are going to be, absent from home for
three months or more, they shall be enumerated
at their destination.
In-patients in a hospital shall be repotted at the
hospital if they have been hospitalized for three
months or more, if not, they shall be reported
at their homes.
Special attention should be paid to the following
cases.
Lodgers
* Lodgers such as roomers and boarders who
pay room rent should be reported individually
as a separate household.
* Lodgers living together with their relatives
should be reported with their relatives as
one household.

Household No.

Persons living in dormitories
* Persons living in school dormitories, dormito ries for unmarried employees, etc. should
be reported individually as a separate household.
Columns to fill out
For persons 15 years old and over as of the
end of the month (26th in December) fill out
the designated columns entry page on the
reverse side.
* The household head should be entered in the
column No. 1.
* Use another schedule, if the number of house­
hold members is six or more.
For persons 14 years old and under, fill out
the columns below.
When entry is over, check if the entry is correct.
Write the name of the head in the designated
column, and give this schedule to the enumerator.
In this survey, actual status during the survey
i'
week ending the last day (26th for December)
of the month should be entered.
For instance, for the person who happened to
work temporarily during the survey week, the
entry should be made as regards the work done
even if he usually does not work. For the
person who is usually working in an office but
who was absent from work and assisted his farm
work during the survey week, the entry should
be made as regards the farm work.

For persons 14 years old and under
|
as of the end of the momh (26th for December)
52
51
53

For the baby who is not Xe'
named* write “not >et named
55
54

1. Name
2. Relationship to
household head
3.

Sex

4.

Date of birth




1 Male
2 Female
Year
Month
Day

1 Male
2 Female
Year
Month
Day

81

1 Male
2 Female
Year
Month
Day

1 Male
2 Female
Year
Month
Day

1 Male
2 Female
Year
Month
Day

Japan
H o u seh o ld
code

E n u m e ra tio n
d istric t co d e
T o be filled in b y
th e e n u m e ra to r

F o r

a

p e rso n

15 y e a rs

o ld

a n d

T o b e filled
in b y th e
e n u m e ra to r

o v er

N u m b er o f
m em bers o f th e
h o u seh o ld

A rea o f cu ltiv ated land

1.
2.
3.
5 0 a re s M ore th an 10 Less th a n 10 ares
or m o re ares b u t less
o r w ith o u t cultith a n 5 0 a res vated lan d

B o th sexes

Fem ale

M ale

15 years old
a n d over
U nder 15

E n te r th e n am es o f p e rs o n s 15 years j N um ber
1

o ld a n d over w h o u su a lly live in y o u r ho u seh o ld .
See th e n o te s o n page 1 fo r th e p ersons to be
in clu d e d .

N am e

R e la tio n s h ip
to t h e lio u s e h o ld h e a d

3
4

S ex

6

H ead

Y ear

C ircle an a p p ro p ria te n u m b e r irrespective o f
o fficial rec o rd .

W as th is p e rs o n engaged in w o rk a t all d u rin g th® survey w eek ?
W ork m ea n s a n y w o rk fo r p a y o r p ro fit d e lu d in g th e w ork
in a fam ily business o n a fa rm , in a s to re , an d so o n .
F o r a p e rso n engaged m ain ly in w o rk .... 1
F o r a p e rs o n engaged p a rtly in w o rk
besides a tte n d in g sc h o o l, engaging
in h o m e d u tie s , a n d so o n ............... 2 o r 3
F o r a p e rso n n o t engaged in w o rk
H ad a jo b b u t d id n o t w o r k ....................4
H ad n o j o b b u t seeking o n e ..... ............. 5
A tte n d e d sc h o o l, engaged in h o m e
d u tie s a n d o th e rs ..................... 6, 7 o r 8

2

D ay

.

S ' 00 5 ‘
Circle an
=. o

i l l e*

x £ mO

3 2
®. t »
o £ ",
Q* 8 ^
S

o 5'vT £ £ l l
c

1.

2.

g

r 1

4 . 5. 6. 7. 8.

III

5T? ?

1. M ale
Y ear

2.

0. 3 *a 2. o (» 0
0
S'
-j.
o

oo 1 o o *
o ^* * «
£ £ o

S-S’ & rt
3 < a. s

D ay

-1

Ik

End o f
| jVq u e stio n

3.

i Si

M o n th

Y ear

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

K » “
X 3
S < 2 .~ g* g* g. ST
£ 5 o
« o 3

D ay

3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

g-STg5 £ ? > g1 9

~ 2r
i «* Q.-co a o. Jig 3
s. 5.n
e
1
' «
1 M

■3 5

V«
*

0.3

’

O 9;

© <B. ~ g* §• g- g*
o
£ £ o §

5.S

.O3

S eeking a m ain jo b o r a s e co n d a ry o n e (F o r persons
w h o circ le d 5 in c o lu m n 6 )

job ............... 1 J

S eeking a m ain
S eeking a se co n d a ry j o b besides
a tte n d in g sc h o o l, engaging in
h o m e d u tie s , a n d so o n .......2

C ircle an
a p p ro p riate
n u m b er

2.

1.
I'M M

2.
Si w

r3 | ^ S |
5- S' 2. 2 3 ‘
/ E nd o f \
\ q u e stio n J

/ E nd o f \
l q u e stio n /

o' *

cr 3

os
< • o sr
—
S ’ S ’ 2. S 5 '
End o f \
q u estio n /

§■ s-

X,

y

/ End o f \
' q u e stio n '




h o u rs

h o u rs

4 . 5. 6. 7. S.

* «g 1
° «B. S.

* 3£ §• =r

8 *
r s
. o T
T

End o f
question -

1
Ierg sp |^ « rt
t (i

& s §•

In c lu d e h o u rs w o rk e d o n side j o b s , h o m e h a n d ic ra fts, te m p o ­
ra ry j o b s , e tc . F o r a p e rso n w h o h a d a jo b b u t did n o t w ork
ho u rs

3.

9
S 5£.cro o. O. ~ i» S ’

£ * J jf

H o u rs w o rk e d d u rin g th e survey w e e k . (U se th e “ m em o ran d u m ”
a t page 4)

d u rin g th e survey w eek (p e rs o n w h o c ircled 4 in c o lu m n 6 ),
w rite O.

2.

2.

1.

0*3 « *<8 |

<-• 05 «5

Day

srg1
g.3^ g. o-«g 00
1- 3 5
%
o 3 £. £9 ©g
3 0 5- O < 2. I
0

1 E nd o f
q u e stio n

/ E nd o f \
Vq u e stio n /

Ifc._________
6 -2

5' a

g, o K *

•0 3 ~ 5'£ S 2. |
®
■ 1 5

M o n th

Y ear

1. N ever m arrie d
2. M arried
3. W idow ed, divorced

1. Never m arried
M arried
3. W idow ed, divorced

rS g5?
T
g1 2
a ik s § I f a
i
O 3 > §•
. 3

2. Fem ale

2. Fem ale

1. M ale

■ SS C e-i's ?
I' L

gJ > g 1 9

2*1 2 £

2. Fem ale
M o n th

1. N ever m arried
2. M arried
3. W idow ed, divorced

111 a ? S *S. S3
l«
2
§ o.

.1 1

I / End of
J \ q u e stio n -

3.

SE c
TP

8 *
o S

D ay

M onth

Y ear

1. N ever m arried
2. M arried
3. W idow ed, divorced

5. 6. 7. 8.

’srs1
3*

a p p ro p riate
n u m b er

M o n th

1. Never m arried
2. M arried
3. W idow ed, d ivorced
.

2. Fem ale

2. F em ale

1. M ale

C ircle 1 fo r m ale, o r 2 fo r fem ale

D a te o f b irth
M arital
s ta tu s

00
to

W rite as W ife, M o th e r, E ldest son, W ife o f eldest
s o n ' D ° m es tic se rv a n t, B usiness e m p lo y ee, etc.
acco rd in g to re la tio n s h ip to th e h o usehold
head.

3 ’ 5 ’ 2. 2 a

-\/

y3
'

/ E nd o f \
\ question '

Japan
c

—
1

c'
m

"ri

R e g u la r

T e m p o ra ry

D ay la b o u re r

v

i

D a y la b o u re r

"a.

°

<
u

R e g u la r

T e m p o ra ry

j2

c

^

D ay la b o u re r

ra

^

T em p o rary

5

^

oi

R e g u la r

v

TL

~

_ H

c2

c
I

E

so

"®

1/1

so

^

,n

H o m e h a n d ic ra ft

F a m ily w o r k e r

(w ith o u t e m p lo y e e )

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o rk e r

(w ith e m p lo y e e s )

D ir e c to r

S e if e m p lo y e d w o rk e r

F a m ily w o rk e r

H o m e h a n d ic ra ft

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o rk e r

( w ith o u t e m p lo y e e )

(w ith e m p lo y e e s )

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o r k e r

F a m ily w o r k e r

H o m e h a n d ic ra ft

D ire c to r

r-"
S e ll e m p l o y e d w o r k e r

( w ith o u t e m p lo y e e )

00

°
( w ith e m p lo y e e s )

F a m ily w o r k e r

H o m e h a n d ic ra ft

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o rk e r

«

D ire c to r

o!

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o rk e r

(w ith o u t e m p lo y e e )

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o rk e r

(w ith e m p lo y e e s )

^

D ire c to r

^

v

la b o u re r

T e m p o ra ry

D ay

R e g u la r

H e m e h a n d ic ra ft

m

-

cs

ao
F a m ily w o r k e r

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o rk e r

m o n t h ) ................................................

S ' 2 - Er

a p p r o p r ia te
num ber

^

\

(w ith o u t e m p lo y e e )

C ir c le a n

tr a c t o f e m p lo y m e n t w ith
a p e r i o d o f le s s t h a n a

(w ith e m p lo y e e s )

e m p lo y e e w h o h as a co n -

i « «
5 _ g o
0 ir!r

«* . 2

S e lf e m p lo y e d w o rk e r

2

D a y la b o u re r (in c lu d in g an

If if

o

^

D ire c to r

........................

o
3

■*

b u t n o t m o re th a n a y e a r)

la b o u re r

R e g u la r

I

T e m p o ra ry

~

t r a c t o f e m p l o y m e n t w ith
a p e rio d o f a m o n th o r m o re

o
T? 3

D ay

1

e m p lo y e e w h o h as a c o n ­

i !

c"
m

.............. .........

<ri

§

R e g u la r e m p lo y e e

T e m p o r a r y e m p lo y e e (a n

r

" —

F o r a n e m p lo y e e

o f w o rk

c

Status

8.

1

D e ta ils

3

F o r a c o m p a n y o r p u b lic
c o rp o ra tio n d ire c to r

.......

4

F o r a s e lf e m p lo y e d w o rk e r
e
5 3 =
A Cl. M
2. a: £
c _ E
3 r =
3 ^ v<

W ith e m p l o y e e s

...................

5

j

6

.................... 7

F o r a p e r s o n w h o d id h o m e
h a n d ic ra ft

O CL

?

.........................

W ith o u t e m p lo y e e
F o r a fa m ily w o rk e r

.............................. .

8

■ § * r
l

l

1

1 *1 ^
9

*

Name of
•stablilhmart

W r ite t h e n a m e o f t h e o f f i c e , f a c t o r y ,

1. U n i n c o r p o r a t e d

1.

s h o p , e t c . in w h ic h t h i s p e r s o n w o r k e d ,

2. C om pany

2. C o m p a n y

3. O th e rs

U n in c o rp o ra te d

1. U n i n c o r p o r a t e d

1. U n i n c o r p o r a t e d

1. U n i n c o r p o r a t e d

2. C o m p a n y

3. O th e rs

2. C o m p a n y

2. C om pany

3. O th e rs

3. O th e rs

3. O th e rs

C irc le a n a p p r o p r ia te n u m b e r fo r th e o rg a n iz a tio n .

M
-a 5 r $
0 a. «
3 o •
< 3

10

I I
ir 3

Kind of
business
or
industry

W r ite s p e c if ic a lly t h e k i n d o f b u s in e s s
o r in d u s tr y a t th e o f f ic e , f a c to r y ,
s h o p , e tc . w h e re th is p e rs o n w o rk e d ,

I
S

1

8

S 'o ’
8 o3 «
r

W r ite s p e c if ic a lly t h e k i n d o f w o r k

11

Kind of
work

in w h i c h t h i s p e r s o n w a s e n g a g e d a t
th e o ffic e , f a c to r y , s h o p , e tc .

£

1 0 0 0 p e rso n s

o ' G o v e rn m e n t

^
o r m o re

2 9 p e rso n s

9 9 p e rso n s

5 0 0 - 9 9 9 p e rso n s

10 -

30 —

p e rso n s

10 0 - 4 9 9 p erso n s

5

•-*

vs

2 —
4 p e rso n s

°
- 9

c"
m

1 p erso n

oi G o v e rn m e n t

o r m o re

od 1 0 0 0 p e r s o n s

9 9 p e rso n s

1 0 0 — 4 9 9 p e rso n s

5 0 0 — 9 9 9 p erso n s

30 -

\d

p e rso n s

9 p e rso n s

2 9 p erso n s

- 4

5 —

2

1 0 -

1 p erso n

r-’

•d

m

oi

^

o r m o re

1 0 0 0 p erso n s

c> G o v e r r n e n r

.

9 9 p erso n s

10 0 — 4 9 9 p e rso n s

5 0 0 - 9 9 9 p e rso n s

30 -

r-

p e rso n s

'O

9 p e rso n s

29 p e rso n s

- 4

5 -

1 0 -

2

V

1 p erso n

fri

cm

»
-.■

o'- G o v e r n m e n t

9 9 9 p erso n s

o t m o re

1 0 0 - 4 9 9 p e rso n s

500 -

p erso n s

9 9 p e rso n s

. 1 0 0 0 p e rso n s

00

p e rso n s

p e rso n s

'O

- 9

30 -

- 4

mi

5

1 0 - 2 9

1 p e rso n

2

m-

--<

f'i

o r m o re

3 0 0 0 p e rso n s

9 9 p e rso n s

O' G o v e r n m e n t

.

30 -

10 0 - 4 9 9 p e rso n s

5 0 0 - 9 9 9 p e rso n s

:

e m p lo y e e .

vd

^

9 p e rso n s

4 p e rso n s

o f f i c e s , f a c t o r i e s , e tc .
C irc le 9 fo r a c e n tr a l o r lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t

2 9 p e rso n s

S t a t e t h e n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s e n g a g e d in th e
e n t e r p r i s e in c l u d i n g t h e m a m o f f i c e , b r a n c h

10 -

1 p erso n

2 -

'

Number of persons engaged in the enterprise as
a whole
5 -

12.

f"

^

3n

1
_____________________________

M

j

13

D*sire for work

F o r a p e rso n

F o r a p e rso n

F o r a p erso n

F o r a p e rso n

F o r a p erso n

F o r a p e rso n

F o r a p erso n

F o r a p e rso n

F o r a p e rso n

F o r a p e rso n

F o r a p e r s o n w h o is w i s h i n g t o c h a n g e j o b s

w h o is w is h -

w h o is w i s h ­

w h o is w is h -

w h o is w i s h ­

w h o is w is h -

w h o is w i s h ­

w h o is w is h

w h o is w i s h ­

w h o is w is h -

w h o is w i s h ­

in g t o c h a n g e

in g to h av e

in g t o c h a n g e

in g t o h a y e

in g t o c h a n g e

in g t o h a v e

in g t o c h a n g e

in g t o h a v e

in g t o c h a n g e

in g t o h a v e

jo b s

a n o th e r jo b s

jo b s

a n o th e r jo b s

jo b s

a n o th e r jo b s

jo b s

a n o th e r jo b s

jo b s

a n o th e r jo b s

S e e k in g

..................................................................................................1

N o t s e e k i n g ............................................................................................2
F o r a p e r s o n w h o is w i s h i n g t o h a v e a n o t h e r j o b in

|

I

1

N ot

O th e rs

♦

S e e k in g .
r i

s e e k in g

«

s e e k in g

S e e k in g

O th e rs

s e e k in g

. N ot

»M N o t

^ ~

|

,

*

f i S e e k in g

|

s e e k in g

r
cfc

. N ot

S

<N

<>
*

5.

,

O

%

|

Z

— S e e k in g

J

4.

8 2

[

t
-

3.

55

Z

u5 O t h e r s

f

2.

s 2

s e e k in g

1
*

1.
Cf

. N or

Q

5
O

t

r

z

S e e k in g

O

4.

s e e k in g

82

e
»

3.
co

^

Z

N ot




2.

m

^

1.

................................................................................................. 3

N o t s e e k i n g ............... .................................... . . . .................................. 4

- 1 S e e k in g

S e e k in g

O t h e r s ..................................... ........................................................................ 5

('

j

[

a d d itio n to th e p re s e n t o n e

Japan

Notes for entry (Q uestion 6 ~ 1 3 )
6. Was this person engaged in work during the survey 7.
week?
"W ork" m eans any w ork for pay o r p ro f­
it w hether it be in the from of wages,
salary , business profits, etc. Fam ily
m em b ers who w orked for the fam ily bu­
sin ess such as a farm , sto re etc. are
reg ard ed as those "w orking", even though
they did not receiv e any w ages. The
w ork also includes any home handicraft or
tem p o rary work for pay o r profit.
“1 Engaged mainly in work” re fe rs to
a person who was engaged m ainly in
8.
w ork on a farm or in an office, etc.
“4 Had a job but did not work” re fe rs
to:
a the em ployee o r the w o rk er who
had been away from his w ork b e ­
cause of sick n ess, holidays, etc. ,
but who is expected to receive
10.
w ages or salary .
b the self em ployed person o r em ­
11.
ployer who had been away from
his w ork for le ss than 30 days
12.
because of sick n ess, holidays, etc.
“5 Had no job but seeking one” re fe rs to
the person who had no job but was
actually seeking w ork by answ ering the
ad v ertise m en ts in the new spaper, apply­
ing at the Public Em ploym ent Security
1 3.
Office, etc. A lso re fe rs to the person
who is w aiting for the answ er of the
application and is able to take up a job
im m ediately a fte r he finds a job.

Hours worked during the survey week
Include the hours w orked on a m ain
job, side job, a ssistin g in the fam ily
e n te rp rise , tem p o rary rem u n erativ e
work, preparing for and clearing
work, overtim e w ork, etc.
Do not include the hours spent for
housekeeping, voluntary w ork without
pay, m eals, break s, tran sp o rtin g to
and from an office, etc.
“Self employed worker” includes a
shop keeper, a facto ry ow ner, a
farm e r, doctor, so licito r, w rite r or
trav ellin g m a r chant etc. , who c a rrie s
on his own business on account.
j

See exam ple on sep ara te sheet.

J

Number of persons engaged in the enterprise
as a whole
Self em ployed w o rk er should be count­
ed if the organization is "u n in co rp o ­
rated "
Desire for work
"W ishing to change jobs" re fe rs to the
em ployee who w ished to be a self em ­
ployed w orker, to change the e n te rp rise
w here he had been w orking to another,
the se lf em ployed w orker who wished
to be an em ployee, etc. But does not
re fe r to the person who w ished to change
the type of w ork in the sam e e n te rp rise .

Memorandum for question 7 on the reverse side
H ours w orked
ie re c o rd e d ev ery da;

N am es
Day H ours. M inutes H ours. M inutes H ours. M inutes H ours. M inutes H ours. M inptes
Day
Day
------------------ .. . _ Day
Day
,
Day
----------: -----------Day
1
T otal
----- ----i
Page 4




84

No information is available on the number of persons
Students who are actively seeking work would be
enumerated as unemployed if they check “had no job but in Japan not classified as unemployed because of temporary
seeking one.” Employed students would be counted as such illness or the number of persons recently looking for work,
since they would check “engaged partly in work besides at­ but taking no concrete steps in the survey week. The fact
tending school.” It should be noted that very few students that persons awaiting the results of previous job applica­
are also engaged in work in Japan—only about 50,000, rep­ tions are counted as unemployed results in the widening of
resenting less than 1 percent of the 15- to 24-year-old the jobseeking period beyond the survey week. However,
labor force.
there is no specified period allowed for jobseeking activities,
The Japanese method appears to be more restrictive such as the 4-week period used in the U.S. survey. There is
than the U.S. method. Excluded from the unemployed also no information on the number of persons waiting to
report to a new job at a later date. The number of such
count in Japan, but included in the U.S. count, are:
persons not classifying themselves as unemployed results in
1. Persons on layoff who were waiting to return to their a slight understatement of Japanese unemployment under
jobs and not seeking other work.
2. Temporarily ill jobseekers who were not in a condi­ U.S. concepts.
tion to begin work immediately. Such persons, if in
a condition to work and seeking work, would be Labor force
classified as unemployed.
3. Some persons who had recently been looking for jobs
In Japan, the labor force consists of all persons 15
(i.e., within the past 4 weeks), but who took no ac­ years of age and over who: (1) Worked 1 hour or more for
tive steps in the survey week and were not waiting for pay or profit or as unpaid family workers in the survey
an answer from a previous job application. The ques­
tionnaire appears to relate “job seeking” to the sur­ week; (2) were employed; or (3) were self-employed per­
vey week.
sons or paid employees with jobs but temporarily absent
4. Persons without a job and waiting to report to a new from work provided that: (a) If self-employed, their ab­
job at a later date. Such persons are considered, as a sence from work did not exceed 30 days; (b) if paid em­
rule, neither to be seeking a job nor to be waiting for
the results of previous job applications. Therefore, ployees, they received pay for part of the survey week.
Four differences between U.S. and Japanese con­
they are classified as economically inactive.
cepts of the labor force are noted. First, Japan includes and
Method of adjustment. There are no data available to esti­
mate accurately the number of additional persons who the U.S. excludes inmates of institutions in the survey uni­
would be counted as unemployed in Japan if U.S. survey verse (both countries include staff members of institutions
methods and definitions were used. However, the total as employed persons). Japan probably classifies all, or
number who would be added is probably small. The “life­ nearly all, inmates of institutions as not in the labor force—
time employment” system (in which a worker remains with therefore, no adjustment is necessary.
Japan includes and the U.S. excludes unpaid family
the same employer until retirement) is a basic pattern of
workers who worked 1 but less than 15 hours in the survey
labor-management relations in Japan. In most plants, the
worker is, in effect, granted permanence of tenure. When week (460,000 in 1975). Japan includes career military
the activity of the establishment is reduced, the employer personnel (the “self defense force”) in the labor force.
holds the worker on, either transferring him to another job Finally, persons with a paid job but not at work during the
survey week are in the U.S. labor force whether or not they
or reducing hours.
In the downturn of economic activity which began receive pay for the time off; in Japan, such workers must
in 1974, a growing number of persons became “temporarily have received pay for part of the survey week to be con­
laid o ff’ in Japan. This was partly because of the employ­ sidered as in the labor force. No adjustment seems necessary
for this
continuing em­
ment adjustment grant system, through which the central ploymentsince Japanese employees under aor salaries when
contract normally receive wages
government provides a portion of the allowances paid to absent from work.
laid-off workers. (See chapter 2.) In the labor force survey,
persons receiving these subsidies are regarded as employed. Method of adjustment. The number of unpaid family
In the unlikely event that a person was laid off without workers who worked less than 15 hours in the survey week
pay, he would be classified as unemployed.
A Japanese “layoff” is quite different from an Ameri­ is reported in the survey results each month. Such persons
are subtracted from the labor force. Japan does not
can one. Persons on temporary layoff in Japan are not dis­ figures on the self-defense force in the survey; suchpublish
figures
charged, and they are still paid by their firms. They are were obtained from the Japanese Embassy in Washington.
under a continuing employment contract and usually work
a reduced number of days or hours during the week rather
than being totally without work. Under U.S. concepts, Unemployment rate
persons who work at all during the reference week are class­
Japan computes its unemployment rate by dividing
ified as employed, as are the Japanese on “temporary lay­
the unemployed by the total labor force. Adjustment to
off.”



85

Labor force. An adjustment for comparability to U.S. con­
cepts is made to EPAs seasonally adjusted labor force data.
The ratio of the labor force adjusted to U.S. definitions to
the “as published” labor force, based on annual average
estimates, is applied to the monthly seasonally adjusted
labor force data to estimate the labor force adjusted to U.S.
concepts. The seasonally adjusted labor force figures are
prepared by the EPA in the same manner as unemploy­
ment figures.

U.S. concepts is accomplished by dividing the reported un­
employed by the labor force adjusted to exclude family
workers working less than 15 hours and the self-defense
force. The adjustments result in either no change or a slight
increase in the reported unemployment rates (table B-l).
Quarterly and monthly estimates

The Bureau of Labor Statistics prepares quarterly and
monthly estimates of Japanese unemployment rates, ad­
justed to U.S. definitions and seasonally adjusted. The
method used in making these estimates is as follows:

France

The official monthly unemployment figures for
France relate to the number of registered unemployed per­
sons. No unemployment rate is published. In addition to
the monthly counts of the registered unemployed, the
French National Institute of Statistics and Economic
Studies (INSEE) makes annual estimates of the labor force
and unemployment which, prior to 1974, were intended to
be comparable with the results of the French population
censuses. Since 1974, the annual estimates have been based
on the number of unemployed under 1LO definitions, as
determined from the results of annual labor force surveys.
Unemployment under ILO definitions represents a broader
concept than that under French census definitions. The
annual unemployment estimates are currently obtained by

Unemployment No adjustment is necessary to estimate un­
employment on a basis comparable to U.S. definitions. BLS
uses the Economic Planning Agency's (EPA) seasonally ad­
justed number of unemployed. These figures are published
in the EPA’s monthly report, Japanese Economic Indica­
tors. The EPA method for seasonal adjustment was de­
veloped by the EPA and is an adaptation of the X-10 Vari­
ant of the U.S. Bureau of the Census seasonal adjustment
program. The X-10 was modified by the EPA to take ac­
count of the rapid growth and structural changes experi­
enced in Japan. Each year, the seasonal adjustment pro­
gram is rerun to incorporate the experience of the previous
year and to estimate the seasonal factors for the current
year.
Table B-1.

Japan: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76

(Numbers in thousands)
item

1959

Reported labor force . . . . . . .
Less: Unpaid family workers
who worked less than 15
hours................................ ... .
Less: Career military
p e rs o n n e l...................
Adjusted civilian labor force . .
Unemployed

................................

Published unemployment rate
(percent) ...................................
Adjusted unemployment rate
(p e rc e n t)................................ .

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

44,330

45,110

45,620

46,140

46,520

47,100

47,870

48,910

49,830

*800

1780

*800

*880

*880

i 840

1870

*830

790

210

210

210

220

210

43,320

44,120

44,610

220

220

45,040

45,430

46,040

46,780

230
47,850

230
48,810

980

750

660

590

590

540

570

650

630

2.2

1.7

1.4

1.3

1.3

2.3

1.7

1.5

1.3

1968

1969

1970

Reported labor fo rc e ...................
Less: Unpaid family workers
who worked less than 15
hours ................................ ... .
Less: Career military
p e rs o n n e l................

50,610

50,980

690

Adjusted civilian labor force
Unemployed

1.3

1.1
1.2

1.2
1.2

1971

1972

1973

51,530

51,860

51,990

600

560

510

240

240

240

. .

49,680

50,140

............................. .

590

570

Published unemployment rate
(percent) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adjusted unemployment rate
(p e rc e n t).............................

1.2
1.2

1.1
1.1

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.3

1974

1975

1976

53,260

53,100

53,230

53,780

440

440

420

460

440

230

230

230

240

240

240

50,730

51,120

51,320

52,590

52,440

52,530

53,100

590

640

730

680

730

1,000

1,080

1.1
1.2

1.2




86

1.3

1.4

1.9

1.3

1 Estimate based on relationship of new series to old series in
1967.

1.4
1.4

1.3

1.4

1.9

2.0
2.0

increasing the unemployed job registrant series to include
the unregistered unemployed under ILO definitions—about
6 percent greater in 1975. The extent to which the registered
series undercounts unemployment has declined sharply
since the adoption of a compulsory national insurance sys­
tem in 1967.
In October 1960, a regular series of labor force sur­
veys was initiated, complementing the general population
censuses. These surveys indicate that the annual French un­
employment and labor force estimates based on popula­
tion census concepts need to be adjusted considerably to
conform more closely to U.S. concepts. The annual un­
employment estimates based on ILO concepts, however,
need to be adjusted only slightly to conform to U.S. con­
cepts.
In March 1975, INSEE published an article in which
French unemployment from the March 1974 survey was ad­
justed to “international definitions.”4 The international
definitions used were the definitions adopted by the ILO
in 1954. INSEE’s method of adjusting survey unemploy­
ment was the same as that being used by BLS, except that
persons seeking a non-wage or -salary job were excluded by
INSEE but are included by BLS. INSEE did not adapt the
labor force to “international definitions” in the article.
INSEE has continued its work on adapting French
unemployment to international concepts. In the last
chapter of the results of the 1975 and 1976 labor force sur­
veys, INSEE presented estimates of employment and un­
employment according to international definitions.5
Additional questions initially incorporated in the 1975 sur­
vey questionnaire made it possible to obtain more precise
estimates under international definitions. For example,
questions are now being asked on current availability for
work and on jobseeking activity within the previous
month. Prior to 1975, there were no such questions in
the survey.

tion of a compulsory unemployment insurance system in
1967. Prior to that, France had a nonstatutory insurance
plan established by collective bargaining agreements. The
National Employment Agency was established in July 1967
to carry out employment exchange and other labor market
management tasks. The new system provides coverage for
over half the French labor force, whereas the earlier plan
covered only about one-quarter of the work force. Also af­
fecting registration statistics was the 1975 enactment of a
new program whereby workers laid off for economic reasons
receive 90 percent of their former wages.
Like most registration counts, the French series is
limited largely to recently employed wage and salary work­
ers who have lost their jobs. Wage and salary workers make
up about three-quarters of the French labor force. Persons
seeking a job for the first time rarely register, and women
workers appear to depend on the placement offices rela­
tively less than men. Furthermore, the registration statis­
tics do not include recipients of the “income guarantee,”
a form of early retirement pension paid under certain con­
ditions to older workers who lose their job. Despite the
establishment of the National Employment Agency, a sub­
stantial number of unemployed still do not register as such,
as is clear from the results of the labor force survey.
Labor force surveys. INSEE conducted experimental labor
force surveys irregularly during the 1950’s, using samples
of 5,000-10,000 households. In the series of surveys begun
in October 1960, a sample of over 25,000 households was
used—a sampling ratio of 1 in 600. The surveys were con­
ducted in October and March of alternate years, except in
1961 when no survey was conducted. The survey of March
1967 terminated this series.
Beginning in March 1968, INSEE inaugurated a new
series of labor force surveys, using a different sampling
method than that used in the 1960-67 surveys. INSEE had
found that the 1962-67 surveys underestimated the total
population, particularly for age groups with the highest
activity rate. It was mainly to remedy this bias that the new
sampling method was introduced. The sample for the new
series is made up of areas rather than households. The
greater geographic concentration of interviews under the
new method permits savings in time and cost of interview­
ing. In addition, the new method permits better enumera­
tion of persons in “marginal” lodgings, such as young
people living in individual rooms. Surveys in the new series
are conducted annually each March,6 using samples of
55,000-60,000 households-a sampling ratio of 1 in 300.
Detailed results of these surveys have been published through

Unemployment and labor force

Registered unemployed. Official monthly unemployment
statistics in France refer to the registered unemployed, con­
sisting of all persons registered with the employment offices
at the end of each month. The figures are published by the
Ministry of Labor in the Bulletin mensuel des statistiques
du travail The reductions in the INSEE coefficient by
which the registered unemployed are inflated to obtain
annual estimates of French unemployment partially reflect
a substantial increase in the proportion of unemployed
workers claiming unemployment status following the adop-

4 Bernard Grais, “Methodes et sources utilisees pour la mesure du
6 The surveys are taken over a period of 7 weeks, usually begin­
chomage,” Economie et Statistique, March 1975, pp. 63-69.
ning the last week of February and ending the second week of April.
Most interviews (i.e., over 90 percent) are conducted during the
5Baudouin Seys and Pierre Laulhe, Enquete Sur L ’E mploi de
first 4 weeks of this period. The 1968 survey, however, was delayed
1975, Resultats provisoires, Les Collections de L’INSEE, Series D,
and spread over a fairly long period, and the 1975 survey was con­
Number 42, December 1975, pp. 71-76; and Enquete Sur VEmploi
de 1976, Resultats provisoires, Les Collections de L’INSEE, Series
duced in April and May because the population census was taken
in March.
D, Number 48, November 1976, pp. 59-68.



87

Those answering “yes” are classified as “marginally unem­
ployed.”
Under labor force survey definitions, the employed
comprise all persons responding “employed” as their prin­
cipal activity plus the “marginally employed” as defined
above. The unemployed comprise all persons responding
“unemployed” as their principal activity plus the “mar­
ginally unemployed.” Thus, the labor force surveys arrive
at a concept of the labor force broader than that of the
population censuses.
Under French survey concepts, persons do not have
to be actively seeking work or currently available for work
to be counted as unemployed. Also, persons who worked a
few hours during the survey week are counted as unem­
ployed if they responded that their principal activity was
“unemployed.” On the other hand, persons on layoff and
persons waiting to begin a new job are counted as employed
if they responded that their principal activity was “em­
ployed.”

March 1972. Summary results for 1973 through 1976 are
also available and have been utilized in this study to pre­
pare preliminary estimates for those years. From 1977 on­
wards the survey is conducted twice a year, in March and
October. No results for 1977 have been published yet.
Foreign workers are counted on the same basis as na­
tional workers in the labor force surveys. Some separate
data on foreign workers are published in the survey results.
The French labor force surveys are limited to residents
of private households. Collective households such as mili­
tary camps, hotels, hospitals, homes for the aged, and re­
ligious communities are not surveyed. Also excluded are
residents of mobile homes, INSEE has made estimates of
the civilian labor force excluded from the survey, and these
figures have been added to the reported labor force.7 In re­
cent years, there have been about 500,000 such persons. All
such persons are assumed to be employed; INSEE states
that they are persons who are engaged in an activity.
Both the old and the new surveys employ the same
basic definitions and wording of questionnaires. The ques­
tionnaire used in the surveys is so constructed that the pop­
ulation 15 years of age and over (14 and over prior to
1968) can be classified according to two different defini­
tions of employment status—one corresponding to that
used in the population censuses, and therefore also com­
parable to INSEE’s annual labor force and unemployment
estimates, and the second corresponding more closely to
U.S. labor force concepts.

Comparability of surveys. As mentioned earlier, France ini­
tiated a new series of labor force surveys in 1968, utilizing a
somewhat different sampling technique than used in the
1960-67 surveys. Concepts and definitions remained the
same. INSEE statisticians assert that a gap between the old
and new series has undoubtedly arisen from the differences
in sampling methods. They have stated that the change in
sampling method had little, if any, effect on unemployment
under census definitions, but feel that there may have been
a significant impact on the “marginally unemployed” fig­
ures. INSEE has made no link between the two series of
surveys.
In analyzing the survey results, BLS has noted a sharp
increase in the number of “marginally unemployed” persons
between 1967 and 1968, from 132,000 to 306,000 (table
B-2). Some of the increase was undoubtedly due to deteri­
orating economic conditions in 1968, but an unknown pro­
portion may also be attributed to the better enumeration of
persons in “marginal” lodgings under the new sample
design.
Labor force participation rates provide another indi­
cator of the break in the comparability of the surveys be­
tween 1967 and 1968. The figures for teenagers are diffi­
cult to interpret because the age of compulsory schooling
was increased from 14 to 16 in 1968. Economic activity
rates for both boys and girls declined slowly from March
1963 to March 1967, then dropped sharply in March 1968.
However, activity rates for several other age groups appear
to reflect the effects of the change in surveying method in
1968. Thus, between 1963 and 1967 activity rates of 20to 24-year-old women held steady around 61 and 62 per­
cent, then rose to 66.5 percent in 1968. Both men and
women in the 55 to 64 age group also had an abnormal in­
crease in economic activity, based on the previous trend.
It may well be that women in their early twenties and men
and women over age 55 who lived alone in rooming houses

Census definitions. In the population census, persons are
asked to indicate their principal activity at the time of the
census. Persons stating that they are employed or unem­
ployed constitute the labor force. No further questions are
asked regarding employment status. In the labor force sur­
veys, people are asked their principal activity at the time of
the survey and the interviewer records their spontaneous re­
sponses. Those responding that they have a job or are un­
employed are comparable to the labor force under the
census definition.
Labor force survey definitions. The labor force surveys at­
tempt to probe deeper into the economic activity and
status of those who do not initially respond that they have
a job or that they are unemployed-the “inactive” popula­
tion by census definitions. These are persons who respond
that their principal activity is that of housewife or student,
or that they are retired from the work force. These persons
are asked two additional questions. The first question con­
cerns whether any professional activities were carried out
during the reference week. Persons who answer that they
worked 1 hour or more are classified as “marginally em­
ployed.” The second additional question concerns jobseek­
ing activities. Persons without a job who did not work at
all in the survey week are asked whether they sought work.
7The INSEE figures were not derived from direct observation,
and should be regarded only as an estimated order of magnitude.



88

French Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

QUESTIONNAIRE INDIVIDUEL
P o u r to u te p e rs o n a e

nee

en

1961

ou

avant

(e t a y a n t M O B

d iffe r e n t d e 9 )

Prenom : ....
3

TC

Sexe

N° i

Date de naissance

1. Masc.
2. Fern.

mois

annee

4

MOB
Lien avec
le chef de (sauf pour la
menage 1re enquete
(voir code) dans i'aire)

1.

C e li b a t a ir e

2.

Nationality

Etat

gorie

(voir code)

matrimonial

Marie

3.

Cate-

Veuf

4. Divorce, legalem ent separe

_L
gj 1 directement ^ .Partie I
Si 5 directement ^ Partie III

8. FILTRE : P r e s e n te r fa c a rte n ° 2 : Occupation principale a la date de I'enquete.
La personne doit se classer elle-meme.
FILTRE

9. Pendant la SEMAINE DE REFERENCE, du

au

1975,

Autres___

Q9
,

(d e rn ie re s e m a in e du iu n d i a u d im a n c h e p re c e d a n t Ia d a te d ‘en q u e te ).

M... a-t-il cependant exerce une activity professionnelle ?

O u i..

M e m e u n e a c tiv ite n o n r e m u n e r e e en a id a n t un m e m b r e d e sa fa m ille d a n s
sa p ro fe s s io n p a r e x e m p le .

directement

1

Non .

Partie

directement

.Partie II

0

N e fu t-c e q u 'u n e h e u re , ne fu t-c e q u 'u n tra v a il o c c a s io n n e i ou ex c e p tio n n e l.

10. M... a-t-il deja exerce une activity professionnelle meme pendant une courte pyriode,
meme s'il y a longtemps ? E x c lu re les a c tiv ite s p u r e m e n t o c c a s io n n e ile s .

O u i..
jvjon _

!

1

I

o

Si 0

11. (S i oui a la q u e s tio n p r e c e d e n te ) :
a son compte (artisan, commercant, profession liberale...).....................

2

comme salarie....................................................................................................

M... travaillait-ii :

1

en aidant un m e m b re d e sa famille dans sa profession...........................

b.

3

_nombre de salaries permanents : .
Activite de I'etablissement (P re c is e r le p lu s p o s s ib le ) :
A quelle date M... a-t-il cesse d'exercer cette activity ?

Annee......................................
(Si en 1971 ou apres) M ois.

PARTIE I. - ACTIVITE PROFESSIONNELLE PRINCIPALE
^ touies les personnes c/assees « 1 » a la question 8 « Fit TRE».

Partie
a remphr pour

tomes les personnes ayant repondu « oui» a la question 9 (decrire dans ce cas i'activite professionnelle
I

de la

semaine de reference et non I'activite professionnelle habituelle ou la plus frequente).

12. PROFESSION PRINCIPALE :

.........................................................................

iPreciser le plus possible. - Etem
ples m
ecantcitmreparateur d'autimobiles, charpent,: en far, dessm
ateur ^tdfii&w, coiffeur pour dam e
es, tc.).

13. M... travaille-t-il, sans ytre saiariy, en aidant un membre de sa famille dans sa profession ?

O u i..
Non

14. ( S i « n o n » a la q u e s tio n p re c e d e n te ). M... exerce-t-il cette profession comme : .

..)......................

0

Exploitant agricole (proprietaire, fermier, metayer..

1

Membre d'une profession liberate............................................................................

2

Employeur ou travailleur indypendant : artisan, commercant, industriel, etc .

3_

Travailleur & domicile pour le compte d'une ou plusieurs entreprises..............

4

Apprenti sous contrat................................................ ......................... ......................

5

Salarie d'un parent qui travaille £ son com pte...................................... .............

6

Salarie place par I'intermediaire d'une entreprise de travail tem poraire.........

7

Autre salarie...................................................................................................................

8

.. M... emploie-t-il des salaries ? Combien ?
(N e p a s c o m p te r les g e n s de rn a is o n ; dan s ('ag ri­
c u ltu re, c o m p te r s e u /e m e n r les s a la rie s p e r m a ­
n e n ts ).

1 ou 2 salaries..................
3 a 5 ....................................
6 ou plus.............................
n'emploie pas de salaries.

15. a

Si M... est ouvrier, qualification de I'emploi actual ;
Manoeuvre ou manoeuvre specialise.........................................
Ouvrier s p e c i a l (OS 1, OS 2, e tc .).......................................
Ouvrier qualifie ou hautement qualifies (P 1, P 2, P 3, e tc .).

b.

Si M... est agent de I'Etat ou d'une collectivity locale, employy d'un service public (EDF, SNCF, etc.),
militaire de carridre. Grade. (Examples: com principal secretaire admmistrabf. chef Hagate de 2* classe, aide-operateur m
ruis
ecanographa, ate.).
Reserve £ la D.R.

C.

Si M... est dans un autre cas, pr£ciser sa position hiyrarchique. (Exempks eontremailr*. chef dataller. riirecteur com ercial, chet da
m
culture, chef de rayon, ate)




89

French Labor Force Survey Questionnaire
Partie reserv6e a la Direction R6gionale

16. ETABLISSEMENT (industries commercial ou autre). EXPLOITATION AG RI­
COLE, etc., que M ... dirige ou pour lequei M ... travaille.
a

» ,:l_ J U l£ J U L _ J U

Nom (ou raison sociale) : .......................... .................................. ............... .

R6

CLE

TECHSTTSECH

A

SA

lm : ....... .................... Loc : ..............................N° i : ...................

I i, i I I I , , , I u u

Rue (ou lieu-dit) : ............ ........ ............................... .................N° : .........

AE

AE5

NAP

T

CHET

SIR I___ I_I__I___I__I___1 _I I I___I I I 1 I
_

Commune : ............ ...... .......... ............................................. D£p* : ..........

16. A A quelle date, M ... a -t-il commence £ travailler dans cet 6tablissement (a cette adresse) ?
A n n 6 e ..............................................

|_____|

(Si en 197 1

____ |

ou apres) M o is .

16. a A ctivite de cet etablissem ent: ............ .................. ............... ........ .................... .............................. ................. .....................
Preciser le plus possible. — Exemples ^ commerce de wins en gros, epicerie de detail, fabrication de charpentes mdtaMques, etc.

17. M ... travaille-t-il de fa$on :
Reguliere : £ longueur d'annee de facon suivie (m em e a tem ps p a rtie l)...........................

1

Saisonniere

2

v recoltes,

activit£s hdteli£res, etc...............................................................................

Occasionnelle : activite d'appoint exercee irregulierem ent........................................................

18. L'activite principale est-elle exercee :

..... 3

£ temps complet

1

£ temps partiel ..

2

19. Nombre cTheures de travail REELLEMENT accomplies pendant la SEM AINE DE REFERENCE
dans la PROFESSION PRINCIPALE.
y compris :

les heures supplementaires r£ellement accomplies;

!

les heures payees mais non accomplies;
les temps de trajets entre le domicile et le lieu de travail;
les heures perdues pour cause de maladie, conge, chomage.

2 0 . Si le nombre cfheures est inferieur £ 4 5 , observations
Autres causes passageres (preciser).....................

A. Causes passag£res :

Debut ou cessation d'em ploi................................

Maladie (y compris longue maladie).................... 02
Conge legal de matemitd.......................................

10

01
B. Causes durables (uniquement si aucune cause
passagere nest citee) :

03

Cong£ annuel, conge pour convenance personnels. 0 4

R6serv£ £ la D.R.

Horaire normal dans IStablissement ou I'entreprise.........................................................................

Mauvais temps, reduction saisonniere d'activite . 05

11

Conflit du travail (gr£ve. lock-out).......................

06

Chdmage partie! (ou ralentissement des affaires)

07

Nature du poste individuel de travail (penible,
dangereux...).........................................................

Exerce actueilement les activit£s occasionnelies
qui se presentent................................................ 08

Travaille £ temps partiel...........................................
Autres causes durables(preciser)...........................

1

12
13
14

u u

RECHERCHE D'UIM EMPLOI

Partie a remplir pour toutes les personnes (sauf les militaires du contingent)
qu'elles aient ou non actueilement un emploi ou une situation
21.

M ... cherche-t-il un emploi (ou un autre emploi) o u ’une situation ?
Oui - Cherche un emploi salarie..................

1

0
.
. ( Oui - Cherche une situation £ son compte
Passer directement partie suivante. \
K
I N o n ....................................................................
22.

2
0

Si M ... trouve un emploi M AINTENANT, peut-il commencer £ travailler im m ediatem ent ?
O u i. . . .
Non

1
o

l— ► Pourquoi ?
Termine ses etudes.............. ...............................................

1

A un emploi qu'il ne peut quitter immediatement . . . . .

2

Est malade temporairement......................................... .

3

Autres raisons. Pr6ciser : ..................................................
23.

4

M ... cherche-t-il un emploi :
A temps complet................................................................................................

1

A temps partiel, mais £ d£faut accepterait un emploi £ temps complet

2

A temps partiel, £ ('exclusion du temps complet.............................. .........

3




90

AE

T

Participation £ un stage de formation (FPA, etc.). 09

PARTIE II. -

J____ L

CHET

AE5

French Labor Force Survey Questionnaire
24.

M... cherche-t-ii un emploi occasionnel pour une duree limitee ?
_1_

Oui .........................................................

0

Non : cherche un emploi permanent.
2 5 a. Ml... est-il actuellement inscrit a un office public de placement : Agence Nationals pour S'Emploi (AIMPH),
bureau de main d'oeuvre d'une mairie ?
Oui —
Non ...
b .

DEPUIS UN MIOIS, M... a-t-il fait d'autres demarches pour trouver un emploi ?
O u t ....

_0
2

Non .. .

Lesquelles ? (S i p lu s ie u rs repon ses, inscrire c e lle q u i a le p lu s p e tit n u m e ro )
S'est inscrit (ou est reste inscrit) dans un office prive de placement ou une agence de travail temporaire..

1

A fait une annonce dans un journal ou sur un tableau d’affichage......................................... ......................

2

A repondu a des offres d'emploi publiees par annonce dans un journal ou sur un tableau d'affichage .

3

A cherche par relations personnelles.................. .............................................................................. ..................

4

A utilise d'autres modes de recherche. ( P r e c i s e r ) ..............................................................................................

5

26. Depuis combien de temps M... cherche-t-il un emploi ?
0

N’a pas commence ses recherches
Moins d'un m o is ..............................

1

moins de 3 m o is .............

2

V 3 mois £ moins de 6 m o is .............

3

____ * 6 mois a moins d'1 a n .....................

4

, 1 mois

i

ci

5

1 an c moins de 2 a n s....................
i
moins de 3 ans..................

6

3 ans et plus......................................

7

/ 2 ans

ci

------- ► Preciser le nombre de m o is ...........

____I__

2 7 . i S a u f p o u r les p e rs o n n e s c lassee s 1 a !a q u e s tio n 8 . F IL T R E ) A la suite de quelles circonstances ML.
cherche-t-il un emploi ?
Vient de terminer (ou termine) ses etudes...........................................................................................................

1

Vient de terminer son service militaire........................................................................................................ ..........

2

m

Vient de quitter un emploi :

dont il a demissionne :

licenciement individual................................................................. ........

3

licenciement collectif................................................................................

dont i! a ete licencie :

4

salaire ou revenu insuffisant, conditions de travail (horaires, p§ni-

22

bilite, etc.), distance du domicile...........................................................

5

pour motifs personnels.................................... ........................................

6

pour leque! il a pris sa retraite.......................................... ............................................ ..........................

7

qui etait un emploi occasionnel................................................................................................. .............

8

Avait cesse toute activite (pour s'occuper de sa famille, de ses enfants, ou pour raisons de sante, etc.).

9

28. ( P o u r ie s p e rs o n n e s c la ssee s 1 a la q u e s tio n 8 . F IL T R E ) Pourquoi Ml... cherche-t-il un autre emploi ?
II existe une crainte ou une certitude de perdre I'emploi actuel......................... ............................................

1

M... desire trouver un emploi plus satisfaisant en ce qui conceme :
Le salaire, le revenu.................................................................... ........................ ......................................

2

Les conditions de travail (horaires, pembiiite, etc.), la distance par rapport au domicile ...........

3

M... cherche une seconde activite 3 exercer en plus de celle qu'il exerce actuellement...........................

4

Autres circonstances.....................................................................................................................................

5

.

29. (S a u f p o u r les p e rs o n n e s c la ssee s 1 a la q u e s tio n 8 . F IL T R E ) Ml... perpoit-ii des allocations de chomage ?




Aide publique......................... ............................................................. ........................................................... ........

1

Assurance-chomage ASSEDIC.................................................................................................................................

2

Aide publique et assurance-chomage A S S E D IC ............................................................. .................. ...............

3

N o n ............................................................................................................................... ................................................

0

91

France: English translation o f labor force survey questions relating to labor force status

Respondent is asked to classify himself in one of
following categories listed on card 2:
1. Practicing a profession; employed;
working in a relative’s business as an
unpaid family worker (go to Part I)
2. Without work and looking for work
3. Housewife (keeping own home)
4. Student or pupil
5. Military conscript (performing com­
pulsory service) (go to Part Ilf)
6. Retired
7. Others without a professional position
9. During the reference week did . . . practice a pro­
fessional activity? (If yes, go to Part I)

- Part-time job
Other (specify)

8.

Part I-Employed Persons

(To be completed for ail persons classified under number
1 to question 8 or replying yes to question 9)
12 to 16. Occupation, class of worker, industry, etc.
17. Is ... a regular, seasonal, or occasional worker?
18. Is the principal activity full or part time?
19. State the number of hours actually worked during
the reference week in the principal profession
- including overtime
- excluding hours paid for but not worked;
travel between home and work site; hours
lost due to sickness, holiday, or unemploy­
ment
20. If the number of hours worked is less than 45,
give reason:
A. Short-term reasons:
- Start or cessation of job
Illness (including long-term ill­
ness)

Maternity leave (under national
insurance)
Annual or personal leave
Bad weather, reduction of sea­
sonal activity
- Labor dispute (strike or lock-out)
- Partial unemployment (or slack
work)
Performing an occasional job at
present
Participation in training course
Other (specify)
B. Loiig-term reasons (only if no short­
term reason is given):
- Normal working hours in estab­
lishment
Nature of work (tiring, danger­
ous, etc.)
L




92

Part II—
Seeking Employment
(To be completed for all persons except military
conscripts, whether employed or not)
21.

Did . . . seek a job (or another job)?
Yes - sought wage employment
— Yes-sought self-employment (skip to fol­
lowing Part)
— No (skip to following Part)
22. If . . . found a job NOW, could he begin work
immediately?
— Yes
— No, why?
- Finishing his studies
- Has a job and is not able to quit
immediately
- Temporarily ill
Other (specify)
23. Did . . . look for:
— A full-time job
— A part-time job, but would accept a
full-time job
A part-time job only
24. Did . . . seek a temporary job for a limited dur­
ation?
Yes
— No: permanent job only
25A. Is . . . registered at the Agence Nationale pour
TEmploi (ANPE) or a local employment bureau?
B. In the past month, did . . . make any other at­
tempts to find a job?
If yes:
— Registered at private employment agency
or an agency for temporary work
— Advertised in a newspaper or other public
place
— Answered newspaper ads or other job
announcements
— Asked personal friends
— Other (specify)
26. How long has . . . looked for work?
— Not yet commenced job search
Less than 1 month
— 1-3 months
— 3-6 months
-- 6 mos-1 year
— 1-2 years
— 2-3 years
— 3 or more years

Table B-2. France: Unemployment as recorded by labor
force surveys, 1960-76
(Thousands)
Total
unemploy­
ment

Under census
definitions

Marginally
unemployed

October surveys:
1960 ................... .
1962 ......................
1964 ................ ... .
1966 ......................

450
457
420
506

202
254
254
371

248
203
166
135

March surveys:
1963 ......................
1965 ......................
1367 ................... ...
1968 . . . . . . . .
1969 ......................
1970 . . . . . . . .
1971 . . . . . . . .
1972 . . . . . . . .
1973 . . . . . . . .
1974 ................
19751 ...................
1976 ......................

343
360
437
656
687
684
767
794
734
782
1,185
1,350

223
236
305
350
362
330
423
451
394
441
737
911

124
132
306
325
353
344
343
340
342
448
439

Date

120

1 This survey was conducted in April.

were much better represented in the series of surveys be­
ginning in 1968.
In the following method of adjustment, the possible
gap between the two series of surveys has not been taken into
account because of the absence of any data with which to
make an adjustment for the impact of change in surveying
technique. However, it should be kept in mind that the
French unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts are
likely to be somewhat understated for the period prior to
1968 because of underenumeration of the “marginally”
unemployed.
Method of adjustment

The detailed information provided by the labor force
surveys can be used to estimate French labor force and un­
employment according to U.S, concepts of measuring these
items. In summary, annual estimates of France’s labor force
and unemployment, adjusted to U.S. concepts, are derived
as follows: (1) The total civilian labor force and unemploy­
ment figures from the labor force surveys are adjusted to
U.S. concepts; (2) ratios are computed comparing (a) the
adjusted labor force with the civilian labor force figures
(from the labor force surveys) that are comparable with
French population census definitions, and (b) the adjusted
unemployed with the registered figure for the survey month;
(3) annual adjustment factors are derived and applied to
the published French figures. Detailed descriptions of
these three steps follow.
Adjustment o f labor force survey results to O.S, concepts.
The adjustments of the reported unemployment figures to
U.S. concepts are shown in tables B-3 (October surveys)
and B4 (March surveys). Total reported unemployment,
including the marginally unemployed, is adjusted to:



93

1. Exclude those who state that their principal activity
was unemployed but who did some work in the sur­
vey week. The number of such persons is reported
in the labor force survey, (if those who worked less
than 15 hours were unpaid family workers, they
would be classified as unemployed in the United
States if they were seeking paid employment, but
sufficient detail for making this distinction is not
available from the French surveys.)
2. Exclude unemployed persons (both the ‘"active” and
the “marginal”) who stated that they had not yet
commenced seeking work. Such persons would be
classified as outside the labor force in the United
States. Some of the unemployed (census definition)
who have not yet commenced seeking work may be
among those (already subtracted from the unemployed
total) who stated they were unemployed but who did
some work in the survey week.
The number of unemployed persons who had not
commenced seeking work is reported in the labor
force survey. In the 1975 and subsequent surveys,
persons were asked specifically whether they had
made any attempts at jobseeking in the previous
month. Those who responded that they had not done
so have been excluded from the unemployed for com­
parability with U.S. concepts. In the surveys prior to
1975, persons were asked how long they had been
looking for work, but there was no specific question
as to whether active steps were taken in the previous
month. Persons who responded that they had not be­
gun to look for work were excluded from the unem­
ployed in the years prior to 1975 for adjustment to
U.S. concepts. Thus, there may well be some persons
who have not been excluded prior to 1975 who did
not take active steps within the previous month. This
is indicated by the higher proportion of marginally
active persons who did not commence seeking work
in 1975 and J976 compared with previous years- 40
percent in 1975 and 1976; 20-25 percent in 1968-74.
3. Exclude unemployed persons (both “active” and “mar­
ginal”) who were not currently available for work ex­
cept for reasons of temporary illness. Data on the
number of such persons were not regularly collected
in the surveys until 1975. Results for that year indi­
cated that 4.7 percent of the unemployed under
census definitions and 40.2 percent of the margin­
ally unemployed were not currently available for
work (except for temporary illness). These propor­
tions have been applied each year through 1974 to
obtain estimates of the number of persons not cur­
rently available for work. Beginning in 1975, a reg­
ular question on current availability (within 15 days)
was added to the surrey, and data were published on
this point. Again, there is a possibility of overlap
with items 1 and 2 above.
4. Exclude the number of persons who fall into more
than one of the first three categories above, to avoid
doublecounting. In the results of the 1975 labor force
survey, information on this point was provided for
the first lime. The data indicated that 11 percent of
the sum oi persons m the first three categories, under
census definitions, should be excluded because of
double counting. Similarly, 23 percent of these per­
sons in the “marginally active” category should be
ex chided. For 1968 onward, the adjustment for over­
count has been based on estimates supplied by

INSEE. For the years prior to 1968, BLS has made
estimates of the overcount based on 1968 relation­
ships. The number of such persons has been added
back into the unemployed count.
5. Include persons who stated they were employed but
who did not work at all in their principal activity dur­
ing the survey week because of partial unemployment
or slack work (i.e., temporary layoff) or because they
either were waiting to start work or left their previous
employment. The number of persons in these two
categories is reported in the survey results. Some of
these persons may have worked in secondary jobs
during the survey week, but no data are available on
this point.
6. Include other jobseekers who said they had a job in
the “census” sense but were looking for work in the
“international” sense. This group comprises a small
number of workers identified by INSEE for the first
time in the 1975 survey. They are probably such
persons as unpaid family workers who worked fewer
than 15 hours and were seeking paid jobs. They
should be included under U.S. concepts. The 1975
data indicated that they represented a small number
of persons, about 11,000. INSEE has used this figure
as a constant in making estimates of unemployment
under ILO concepts back to 1968. BLS has also
Table B-3.

followed this procedure. For the years prior to 1968,
the number of persons in this category was estimated
based on 1968 relationships.
7. Exclude persons under 16 years of age from the un­
employed count. The lower age limit for the French
labor force surveys was 14 until 1968 when it was
raised to 15. Since compulsory schooling now ends
at age 16 in France, 14- and 15-year-olds have been
excluded from the unemployed in 1960 through
1967, and 15-year-olds have been omitted from data
for 1968 and following years. The numbers of unem­
ployed 14- and 15-year-olds was not separately re­
ported in the labor force surveys. Their numbers were
estimated by assuming they had the same unemploy­
ment rate as all teenagers.
The adjustments to the labor force figures reported in
the French surveys are shown in tables B-5 and B-6. The
total civilian labor force (including the “marginally” em­
ployed and unemployed) is adjusted to exclude unpaid
family workers not at work, unpaid family workers who
worked 1 but less than 15 hours, and persons reporting
themselves as employed but who were not at work because
of “durable reasons,” that is, personal convenience or the
nature of the job. Figures on all the above categories are

France: Adjustment of unemployment data from October surveys to U.S. concepts, 1960-66

(Numbers in thousands)
1960

1964

1962

1966

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

Reported unemployed . .......................
Less: Persons at work 1 hour
or m o r e ................... .....................
Less: Unemployed who have
not commenced seeking
w ork 1 , 2 ................... ......................
Less: Persons not currently
available for work 3 . . . . . . . .
Plus: Adjustment for double
count4 ......................... ...................
Plus: Employed persons not at
work due to:
Start or cessation of job 1 . . . .
Partial unemployment
(slack work )1 ...................... ...
Plus: Other jobseekers5 ...................
Adjusted unemployed, age 14
and over . . . . . .............................
Less: 1 4 -and 15-year-olds6 . . .
Adjusted unemployed, age 16
and over ................... . . . . . .

450

160

290

465

183

282

420

175

245

506

204

302

22

16

5

17

7

10

12

5

7

16

10

6

77

17

60

85

33

52

67

20

47

58

18

40

109

24

85

94

36

58

79

43

36

71

22

49

48

13

35

45

17

28

36

15

21

33

11

22

29

14

15

20

10

10

27

13

14

22

15

7

46
4

20
1

26
3

41
4

18

23

2

20
2

29
5

14

2

33
4

13

2

2

15
3

369

151

154

225

2 12

254

10

11

10

9

450
18

196

21

362
19

150

10

2 1S
11

379

21

8

10

348

141

208

358

144

214

343

140

203

432

188

244

Registered unemployed (October) . .
Adjusted unemployed age 16
and over as percent of
registered unem ployed................

116

69

47

163

94

69

119

71

48

154

33

61

300.0

204.3

442.6

219.6

153.2

310.1

288.2

197.2

422.9

280.5

202.2

400.0

Item

4

1 Number of persons reported as “unknown" distributed propor­
tionally.
bo.-»d on data reported in the surveys on persons who have not
commenced seeking jobs. No data were available on the number of
persons who had not actively sought work in the preceding month.
3 Estimates based on data reported in 1975 which indicated 4.7
percent of the unemployed under census definitions and 40.2 per­
cent of the marginally unemployed were not currently available for
work.

This adjustment allows for the fact that persons may have been
excluded more than once by appearing in more than one of the
above categories. Double count was estimated as 23 percent of the
above three categories.

2




* Persons who were classified as employed, but who were seeking
work and would be counted as unemployed under U.S. concepts.
Estimates based on data from INSEE which indicate that this group
is equivalent to 2 percent of the reported unemployed.
Number of 14- and 15-year-olds reported in the survey divided
by ratio of reported to adjusted unemployed age 14 and over.

94

Table B-4. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from March surveys to U.S. concepts, 1963-76
(Numbers in thousands)
1963

1965

1967

1968

Item
Total
Reported unemployed ..........................
Less: Persons at work 1 hour
or m o r e ......................................
Less: Unemployed who have not
commenced seeking w ork 1 . .
Less: Persons not currently
available for work 2 ...................
Plus: Adjustment for double
count 3 ......................... ...
Plus: Employed persons not at
work due to:
Start or cessation of job 1 . . .
Partial unemployment
(slack w ork )1 ......................
Plus: Other jobseekers4 . . . . . .
Adjusted unemployed, age 14
and over ......................
Less: 1 4 -and 15-year-olds5 . . . .
Adjusted unemployed, age 16
and over .............................................
Registered unemployed (March) . . .
Adjusted unemployed age 16
and over as percent of registered unemployed . . . . . .

Male

343

156

8

Female

Total

Male

187

360

4

4

69

27

58

Female

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

155

204

437

200

237

656

269

387

10

8

1

9

6

3

18

11

7

42

57

14

43

46

12

34

105

29

76

23

35

61

15

46

67

17

50

139

38

101

31

12

19

29

8

21

28

8

20

61

20

41

18

10

8

16

10

6

9

7

2

28

15

13

31
7

15
3

16
4

38
7

15
3

23
4

41
9

21

20

36

5

11

19
5

17

4

295
16

142

153

154
9

197

10

402
23

205

8

322
19

168

8

12

11

530
7

250
4

280
3

279

134

145

303

145

158

379

193

186

523

246

277

178

116

62

153

95

58

189

123

66

264

168

96

156.7

115.5

233.9

198.0

152.6

272.4

200.5

156.9

281.8

198.1

146.4

288.5

1969
Reported unemployed . .......................
Less: Persons at work 1 hour
or more . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Less: Unemployed who have not
commenced seeking w ork 1 . .
Less: Persons not currently
available for work 2 ...................
Plus: Adjustment for double
count 3 . ................ ......................
Pius: Employed persons not at
work due to:
Start or cessation of job 1 . . .
Partial unemployment
(slack w ork )1 ......................
Plus: Other jobseekers4 ................
Adjusted unemployed, age 14
and o v e r ............................................
Less: 1 4 -and 15-year-olds5 . . . .
Adjusted unemployed, age 16
and o v e r .............................................
Registered unemployed (March) . . .
Adjusted unemployed age 16
and over as percent of reg­
istered unem ployed . . . . . .

1970

278

409

684

249

435

767

273

494

794

287

506

19

12

7

19

12

7

21

13

8

24

15

9

102

27

75

109

25

84

123

30

93

117

24

92

148

39

109

158

36

122

158

39

119

159

33

126

70

23

47

78

23

55

77

21

56

79

19

60

26

14

12

22

12

10

26

15

11

18

9

9

29

13
4

16
7

26

11

12

11

11

4

7

20
11

9
4

11

4

15
7

23

11

554
4

254

300

309

602

243

359

622

256

366

2

535
4

226

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

550

252

298

531

224

307

600

242

358

620

255

365

246

148

99

250

145

105

335

190

145

389

221

167

223.6

170.3

301.0

212.4

154.5

292.4

179.1

127.4

246.9

159.4

115.4

218.6

11

1974

7

1976

19756

734

251

483

782

259

524

1,185

486

699

1,350

511

839

21

13

8

22

14

8

29

18

11

34

22

12

110

25

85

120

28

92

257

60

197

238

56

182

156

35

121

158

37

121

215

49

166

192

44

148

81

21

60

72

19

53

99

25

74

82

22

60

See footnotes at end o f table.




1972

687

1973
Reported unemployed . . . . . . . . .
Less: Persons at work 1 hour
or more . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Less: Unemployed who have not
commenced seeking w ork 1 . .
Less: Persons not currently
available for work 2 . . . . . . .
Pius: Adjustment for double
count 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1971

6

95

Table B-4. France: Adjustment of unemployment data from March surveys to U.S. concepts, 1963-76—Continued
(Numbers in thousands)
1973

1974

19756

1976

Item
Total
Plus: Employed persons not at
work due to:
Start or cessation of job 2 . . .
Partial unemployment
(slack w ork )1 ......................
Plus: Other jobseekers4 . . . . . .
Adjusted unemployed, age 14
and o v e r ................ ...
Less: 1 4 -and 15-year-olds5 . . . .
Adjusted unemployed, age 16
and o v e r ............................................
Registered unemployed (March) . . .
Adjusted unemployed age 16
and over as percent of reg­
istered u n e m p lo y e d ................

Male

18

9

20
11
577

Female

Total

Male

9

18

9

9
4

11
7

20
11

221
1

356

603

2

1

575

220

378

152.1

Female

Total

Male

9

16

8

9
4

11

35

7

11

221
1

383

2

1

355

601

220

192

186

439

114.6

190.9

136.9

Female

Total

Male

Female

8

26

13

13

16
5

19

18
5

8
2

10

6

845

413

432

1,017

434

583

2

1

1

2

1

1

382

843

412

431

1,015

433

582

207

232

755

391

364

938

465

474

106.3

164.7

111.7

105.4

118.4

108.2

93.1

122.8

3

4

d u m b e r of persons reported as “unknown" distributed propor­
tionally.
2Through 1974 estimated as 4.7 percent of unemployed under
census definitions and 40.2 percent of the marginally unemployed.
Beginning 1975, based on results of the survey.
3This adjustment allows for the fact that persons may have been
excluded more than once by appearing in more than one of the
above categories. From 1968, the adjustment was made on the basis
of data supplied by INSEE, Double count for prior years estimated
as 23 percent of the above three categories.

Persons who were classified as employed, but who were seeking
work and would be counted as unemployed under U.S. concepts
(e.g., unpaid family workers who worked fewer than 15 hours and
were seeking paid jobs). The figures for 1968 onward were supplied
by INSEE. For prior years, estimated as 2 percent of the number of
reported unemployed.

reported in the survey results. The unemployed who have
not commenced seeking work or who were not currently
available for work should also be excluded from the labor
force. The method of estimating these categories was
explained above. Also, the adjustment to eliminate double
counting in these unemployed categories must also be made
here.8
Finally , the number of persons in the reported labor
force who are under the age of 16 should be excluded. The
number of 14-year-olds in the labor force was separately
reported in the surveys conducted from 1960 through
1967. In 1968, the lower age limit was raised to 15. The
number of 15-year-olds in the labor force has been esti­
mated by applying the reported labor force participation
rate for 15-year-olds to the estimated 15-year-old popula­
tion from demographic data reported to the OECD.9

Detailed results of the French surveys through March
1972 have been published. For the later surveys, only
summary results have been published, and these have been
used to make interim estimates until the detailed results
become available. Therefore, some minor revisions may
be made in the future in tables B-4, B-6, and B-7.

'5Number of 14- and 15-year-olds reported in the survey divided
by ratio of reported to adjusted unemployed age 14 and over.
Data for April.

Adjustment ratios. (See tables B-3 through B-6.) Ratios of
(a) labor force figures adjusted to U.S. concepts to (b) un­
adjusted Figures based on census definitions were computed
for each labor force survey. Ratios of adjusted unemployed
to registered unemployed for men and women were also
computed. The unemployment ratios were computed sep­
arately for men and women because of the large differ­
ence in the degree to which unemployed men and women
register. In March 1976, the adjusted civilian labor force age
16 and over was 1.5 percent greater than the civilian labor
force by French census definitions. Adjusted unemploy­
ment was 8 percent greater than unemployment recorded
in the registered unemployed series. Male unemployment
according to U.S. concepts was 7 percent smaller than
registered male unemployment; female unemployment
under U.S. concepts was 23 percent higher than registered
female unemployment. The March 1976 survey was the
first one to show an overstatement of male unemployment
by the registered series; all previous surveys had indicated
that the registration series understated male unemployment
by U.S. definitions.

g

The double-count adjustment was modified slightly to apply only
to double counting of persons who had not commenced seeking
work and were also not currently available for work. Thus, the ad­
justment did not apply to persons who stated that their principal
activity was “unemployed” but who did some work in the survey
week. Such persons were excluded from the unemployed, but
should not be excluded from the labor force because they would be
classified as employed by U.S. concepts.
9 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
Demographic Trends, Supplement Country Reports (Paris, OECD,
1966) and Demographic Trends. 2970-1985 in OECD Member
Countries (Paris, OECD, 1974).



96

Annual estimates of labor force and unemployment adjusted
to U.S. concepts. The adjustment factors developed from
the labor force surveys for October and March of alternate
years 1960 through 1966 and March of each year beginning
in 1967 were prorated by month to obtain annual average
adjustment factors (shown on table B-7). For the years
1959 and 1960, the adjustment factor for 1961 was assumed
to apply. The March 1976 adjustment factor was assumed
to apply in 1976 in order to make preliminary estimates
for that year. When the March 1977 survey results are
available, some revisions to the 1976 unemployment esti­
mates may be necessary because of the prorating technique.
The October surveys taken at 2-year intervals between
1960 and 1966 indicated much higher unemployment ad­
justment factors than the March surveys. This may indi­
cate a large seasonal variation in adjustment factors; how­
ever, it is difficult to determine the extent of seasonal
variation in the factors since no two surveys were taken in
the same year. A comparison of age distributions of the
unemployed in October and March reveals some significant
differences. The following tabulation shows the average age
distribution for the 1962-66 October surveys versus the
distribution for the 1963-67 March surveys:

Table B-5, France: Adjustment of labor force data from
October surveys to U.S. concepts, 1960-66
(N u m b e rs in th o u s a nds)

Item

1960

1962

1964

1966

Reported civilian labor force 1 .. 20,025 20,642 20,862 20,948
Less: Unpaid family workers:
Not at work 2 .............................
27
46
36
35
At work less than 15 hours2 . .
177
136
178
168
Less: Employed persons not at
work for durable reasons2,3 . .
15
19
32
33
Less: Employed who had not
commenced seeking work2,4. .
77
85
67
58
Less: Persons not currently
available for work 5 , ................
94
79
71
109
Plus: Adjustment for double
24
21
count 6 .........................................
23
21
Adjusted civilian labor force, age
14 and o v e r ................................
Less 14- and 15-year-olds7 . .
Adjusted civilian labor force,
age 16 and o v e r ................... ... .
Reported civilian labor force
(census definitions) . . . . . . .
Adjusted civilian labor force
age 16 and over as percent of
reported civilian labor force . .

19,640 20,254 20,494 20,636
8581
442
368
308
19,059

19,812 20,126 20,328

18,929 19,672 20,055 20,239

100.7

100.7

100.4

100.4

1 Labor force surveyed including marginally active plus estimated
labor force not covered by the survey less career military personnel.
2 Number of persons reported as "unknown” distributed propor­
tionally.
3"Durable reasons” refers to nature of the job and personal con­
venience.
4
Based on data reported in the surveys on persons who had not
commenced seeking jobs. No data were available on the number of
persons who had not actively sought work in the preceding month.
5 Estimated as 4.7 percent of unemployed under census defini­
tions and 40.2 percent of the marginally unemployed.
6This adjustment allows for the fact that persons may have
been excluded more than once above since they could have neither
commenced seeking work nor been currently available for work.
7
Number of 14- and 15-year-olds estimated in the survey divided
by ratio of reported civilian labor force to adjusted labor force
age 14 and over.
8 Estimate.

October

March

under census definitions .
to 19 years . . . . . . . . .
to 24 years . . . . . . . . .
to 54 y e a rs .........................
and over ................

100.0

100.0

34.6
13.5
38.5
13.3

31.3
15.1
41.3
12.3

Total marginally active .............
14 to 19 y e a r s ..........................
20 to 24 y e a r s .........................
25 to 54 y e a r s ...................... ...
55 and over .............................

100.0

100.0

22.3

27.9
12.9
41.9
17.3

Total
14
20
25
55

11.6
47.0
19.0

These figures indicate that, under census definitions,
teenage unemployment was a higher proportion of total
unemployment in October than in March. The reverse was
true for marginally active teenagers.
According to census definitions, teenagers seeking
their first job had a much higher representation in the Oc­
tober surveys. For the marginally active teenagers, however,
representation was highest in March, as shown in the following tabulation:

The adjustment factor for men has been declining
rapidly in recent years. In March 1969, male unemploy­
ment adjusted to U.S. concepts was 70 percent higher than
registered male unemployment. By 1970, this factor had
fallen to 55 percent, and by 1975, to 5 percent. Part of
this decline was brought about by the spread of the New
Employment Agency throughout the country. The decline
was also related to higher unemployment benefits in France
which induced more persons to register. Periods of reces­
sion, such as 1974-76, also tend to cause more unemployed
persons to register at employment offices, thus reducing
the adjustment factor which is applied to the registrations
series.
Female adjustment factors have also been declining
(except in 1976 when the factor rose slightly) for the same
reasons stated above. However, the adjustment factors for
women remain much higher than those for men since many
unemployed women are new entrants or reentrants to the
labor force and are not eligible for jobless benefits.



(Percent)

October

Under census definitions . . .
Marginally active . . . . . . . .

24.1
19.2

(Percent)

March
16.3
24.5

These differences probably reflect the fact that in­
school teenagers (“marginally active”) are more likely to
seek work in March for the coming summer vacation. Ac­
cording to INSEE officials, out-of-school teenagers (“census
definitions”) who completed their schooling in the previous
June tend to look seriously for their first job around Sep­
tember and October, after a summer vacation. Thus, there

97

(except in 1963). in 1959, the adjusted French unemploy­
ment rate was 2.0 percent, whereas the rate based on un­
adjusted data was 1.3 percent (table B-7). By 1976, the ad­
justed and unadjusted figures were much closer— and
4.6
4.5 percent, respectively.

are some important differences between March and October
survey results.
In 1977, INSEE began to conduct two surveys each
year—in March and October. When results of these surveys
become available, the extent of the seasonal variation be­
tween the March and October adjustment factors will be
better known.
The annual adjustment factor for the labor force has
fluctuated within a narrow range of 99.7 to 101.5. The ad­
justed labor force was occasionally below the labor force
under census definitions because the addition of the “mar­
ginal” labor force was more than cancelled out by the sub­
traction of 14- and 15-year-olds, unpaid family workers
not at work or working less than 15 hours, and other ele­
ments not included in the U.S. labor force, as discussed
earlier.

Quarterly and monthly estimates

BLS estimates seasonally adjusted jobless rates ad­
justed to U.S. definitions for France. The method used in
making these estimates is as follows:
Unemployment. Quarterly and monthly adjustment factors
(to adjust to U.S. concepts) are derived from the annual
French labor force surveys by prorating between surveys, as
described above. These adjustment factors are applied to
the INSEE seasonally adjusted number of registered unem­
ployed to arrive at seasonally adjusted estimates of jobless­
ness adjusted to U.S. definitions. The seasonally adjusted
registered unemployed series is published in INSEE’s
monthly bulletin, Bulletin Mensuel de Statistique. INSEE
utilizes the additive version of the X-l 1 Variant of the U.S.
Census Bureau’s Method II seasonal adjustment program.

Unemployment rate

Adjusted unemployment rates are obtained by divid­
ing the adjusted unemployed figures by the adjusted labor
force figures. These adjusted rates are higher than the un­
employment rates calculated from published French data
Table B-6.

France: Adjustment of labor force data from March surveys to U.S. concepts, 1963-76

(N u m b e rs in thousands)

Item
Reported civilian labor force 1 . . . .
2
Less: Unpaid family workers:
Not at work 3 ...................................
At work less than 15 hours3* . . . .
7
Less: Employed persons not at
work for durable reasons3,5 . . . .
Less: Unemployed who had not
commenced seeking work 3,7 . . .
Less: Persons not currently available
for work 8 ................... . ..................
Plus: Adjustment for double count 9
Adjusted civilian labor force, age 14
and o v e r ...............................................
Less: 1 4 -and 15-year-olds10 . . . .
Adjusted civilian labor force, age
16 and o v e r .........................................
Reported civilian labor force
(census d efinition s)............... ...
Adjusted civilian labor force age
16 and over as percent of reported
civilian labor f o r c e .............................

1963

1965

1967

1968

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

19751

1976

21,658 21,818 21,914 22,154 22,902 23,027
36
} 4 160 J 4 162
124

4 28

4 28

123

125

6 19

6 19

6 17

6 17

117

110

120

257

238

159
72

156
74

158
67

215
94

192
77

46
139

67
162

31
141

48

45

86

111

51
135

48
117

22

9

20

24

11

14

19

19

69

57

46

105

102

109

123

58
29

61
27

67
26

139
56

148
58

158
72

158
70

19,874 20,173 20,251 20,958 21,058 21,226 21,263 21,435 21,543 21,762 22,356 22,504
97
620
625
6 25
435
420
56
55
625
468
29
29
19,406 19,738 19,831

20,861

21,002 21,171 21,234 21,406 21,518 21,737 22,331 22,484

19,518 19,864 19,923 20,609 20,764 20,940 20,994 21,119 21,253 21,487 22,048 22,152

99.4

99.4

99.5

10 1.2

10 1.1

10 1.1

10 1.1

101.4 610 1.2 610 1.2 6 101.3 6 101.5

who had not actively sought work in the preceding month.

1 Data for April.
2 Labor force surveyed including marginally active plus esti­
mated labor force not covered by the survey less career military
personnel.
3 Number of persons reported as "unknown" distributed propor­
tionally.
4Through 1974, estimated as 0.7 percent of reported labor force
(data not yet published). Beginning 1975, the number at work less
than 15 hours was published. Number not at work was estimated
from 1972 proportions.
5
"Durable reasons" refers to nature of the job and personal
convenience.
P relim inary.
7Through 1974, based on data reported in the surveys on per­
sons who had not commenced seeking work. Beginning 1975,
based on results of specific question in survey on number of persons




1969

20,179 20,502 20,530 21,304 21,417 21,621

98

8Through 1974, estimated as 4.7 percent of unemployed under
census definitions and 40.2 percent of the marginally unemployed.
Beginning 1975, based on results of the survey.
9This adjustment allows for the fact that persons may have been
excluded more than once above since they could have neither com­
menced seeking work nor been currently available for work. From
1968, the adjustment was made on the basis of data supplied by
INSEE. Double count for prior years estimated as 23 percent of
the above two categories.
Beginning in 1968, the labor force data relate to 15-year-olds
and over. Therefore, only 15-year-olds are omitted in 1968 and
following years. The number of persons under age 16 were esti­
mated from the survey and were divided by the ratio of reported
civilian labor force to adjusted civilian labor force age 14 (or 15)
and over.

Labor force. BLS estimates quarterly civilian xaoor force
figures based on INSEE estimates of end-of-year civilian
employment and end-of-quarter data on the number of
employees in nonagricultural industries and other avail­
able data. The BLS estimates are then seasonally adjusted
using the U.S. Bureau of the Census X -ll seasonal adjust­
ment program, multiplicative version.
Unemployment rate. Quarterly unemployment rates are
computed by dividing the 3-month average of seasonally
Table B-7.

adjusted unemployment (adjusted to U.S. definitions) by
the seasonally adjusted (adjusted to U.S. definitions) labor
force. Monthly unemployment rates are calculated in a
similar way. Since estimates of the labor force are only
available quarterly, the labor force is held constant for each
of the 3 months which make up that quarter. Additionally,
the latest available labor force figure is used until enough
data are available to make a more current estimate. At that
time, quarterly and monthly jobless rates are recalculated.

France: Labor force and employment data before and after adjustment to U.S. concepts, 1959-76

(N u m b e rs in thousands)

Item

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

PUBLISHED FIGURES
Registered u n e m p lo y e d .................................................................. ...
M a l e ............................... .................. ...............................
Fem ale.................................................. ............................................
Civilian labor fo r c e ............................... ............................................
Total unemployed 1 ...................... ..................................
Percent of registered ......................................................................
Unemployment r a t e ...........................................................................

141

86
55

130
82
49

111
67
45

123
72
51

140

86
54

114
71
43

142

86
55

148
92
55

196
123
73

18,925 18,951 18,919 19,050 19,399 19,638 19,813 19,964 20,118
254
203
273
239
230
216
365
269
280
184
180
183
187
195
186
189
189
189
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.8

ADJUSTED FIGURES
Civilian labor force (rounded) .........................................................
Percent of published figures.........................................................
Unemployed (rounded) ................................... ..................... ...
M a l e ......................... ........................................................................
Percent of registered . .........................................................
Female ................................... ..................................................... ... .
Percent of registered............................................................
Unemployment r a t e ...........................................................................

19,060 19,080 19,050 19,160 19,340
99.7
100.7
100.7 100.7
100.6

19,680 19,750 20,000 20,100
99.7
100.2
100.2
99.9

380

350

300

280

260

290

310

380

400

160
186.2
218
395.7

153
186.2
194
395.7

125
186.2
178
395.7

115
159.3
167
327.0

115
133.5
149
275.0

127
178.9
163
378 1

142
164.6
168
305.1

175
190.1
203
369.0

192
155.9
289.8

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.5

1.3

1.5

1.6

1.9

2.0

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

2 12

1976

PUBLISHED FIGURES
Registered unemployed .........................................................
Male ..................................................................................................
Female ............................................... ..............................................
Civilian labor fo r c e ...............................................................................
Total unemployed 1 ............................................................................
Percent of registered.........................................................
Unemployment rate ...................... .....................................................

254
156
98

223
129
94

262
146
116

338
188
150

383
208
176

394
193

201

498
238
260

840
428
412

934
444
490

20,176 20,434 20,750 20,958 21,155 21,388 21,715 21,733 21,863
427
356
993
340
492
450
615
446
889
114
168
152
132
123
106
136
128
106
4.1
4.5
1.7
2.3
2.8
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.7

ADJUSTED FIGURES
Civilian labor force (rounded) ...................................... ...
Percent of published figures.........................................................

20,380 20,660 20,980 2 1,2 10

101.0

10 1.1

Unemployed (ro u n d e d )......................................................................

530

Male ......................................... ........................................................
Percent of registered............................................................
Female ...............................................................................................
Percent of registered ............................................................

240
154.1
286
292.2

Unemployment r a t e ......................................, ..................................

2.6

1 Until 1971 based on census definitions; thenceforth, based on
ILO definitions.




99

21,430 21,640 21,980 22,040 22,190
101.3
10 1.2 10 1.2 101.4 101.5

10 1.1

10 1.2

490

540

590

610

580

650

930

1,020

213
164.9
280
298.0

214
146.4
323
278.4

233
124.2
359
239.0

240
115.4
370
210.5

216

435

368
183.3

253
106.2
392
150.8

413
93.1
603

2.4

2.6

2.8

2.8

2.7

3.0

112.0

101.6
497
120.7

122.8

4,2

4.6

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

G erm any

The official unemployment statistics for Germany are
administrative statistics representing the number of persons
registered as unemployed at the offices of the employment
service. Since 1957, the registered unemployed series has
been supplemented by data on unemployment obtained
from a household labor force survey, the Microcensus. The
Microcensus definitions and concepts are similar to U.S.
labor force survey concepts and the Microcensus is used
as the basis for adapting German unemployment statistics
to U.S. concepts.

(Th ousands)

Unemployment

Registered unemployed. The German registered unemployed
count is taken on a specified day at the end of each month
and covers those who at some previous time registered as
unemployed and whose job application has not yet been
settled. Persons 15 years of age and over without a job or
employed for less than 20 hours per week are counted as
unemployed if they are available for work, not ill, and seek­
ing paid employment of 20 hours per week or more. Regis­
tration is not compulsory, but it is an essential condition
for receiving unemployment benefits. The data on registra­
tions are published monthly by the Federal Labor Office
in Amtliche Nachrichten.
The registration statistics distinguish between un­
employed jobseekers and jobseekers who are not unem­
ployed (table B-8). All jobseekers are referred to as “ar~
beitsuchende.” Unemployed jobseekers are designated as
“arbeitslosethe official German unemployment concept.
The difference between the jobseekers and the unemployed
comprises the “nichtarbeitslose arbeitsuchende,” that is,
jobseekers who are not unemployed. These are mainly per­
sons who have a job, but are looking for a new job or a sup­
plementary job. Also included in the “nichtarbeitslose
arbeitsuchende” are persons who are not employed and
who are seeking “insignificant” employment of less than
20 hours per week.
In 1976, the total number of jobseekers was 1,296,000,
of whom 1,060,000 were unemployed and 236,000 were
not unemployed. Of the unemployed, 84 percent were
seeking full-time work (“volizeitarbeitslose”) and the re­
mainder were seeking 20 hours or more, but not full-time
work (“teilzeitarbeitslose”). Statistics are not published on
the number of persons working less than 20 hours per week
who are classified as unemployed.
Beginning with December 1959, persons in the con­
struction industry who receive unemployment insurance
benefits known as “bad weather money” (payable during
the period of November 1 to March 31) are excluded from
the unemployment count. This makes a substantial differ­
ence in the registered unemployed total since construction
unemployment in Germany is generally very heavy in the
winter months; peak unemployment in January was 3 to 5



Total
number of
jobseekers

Year

100

19593 .............
1960 ................
1 9 6 1 ................
1962 ................
1963 ................
1964 ................
1965 ................
1966 ................
1967 ................
1968 ................
1969 ................
1970 . . . . . .
1971 . . . . . .
1972 , .............
1973 . . . . . .
1974 . . . . . .
1975 ................
1978 ................

659
395
302
272
303
282
252
277
579
443
301
281
325
403
452
778
1,274
1,296

Unemployed
jobseekers1
540
271
181
155
186
169
147
161
459
323
179
149
185
246
273
582
1,074
1,060

Other
jobseekers2
119
124

121
118
118
113
105
116

120
120
123
132
140
156
178
196

200
236

1 These are the official German unemployment figures. Some
persons with negligible employment are included.
2
Comprises jobseekers who have a job but are looking for a
new job or a supplementary job and persons who are not employed
and who are seeking work of less than 20 hours per week.
Data for 1959 include persons in the construction industry who
receive unemployment benefits known as "bad weather money."
For 1960 and later years, such persons are excluded from the
unemployed.
SOURCE:
Labor Office).

Amtliche Nachrichten

(Nuremberg, German Federal

times the September level in the late 1950’s. Separate figures
are available on the number of recipients of “bad weather
money.” Persons outside the construction industry who
register to receive short-time benefits have always been ex­
cluded from the registered unemployed count. Separate
figures are also collected on the number of such persons.
The yearly average of registered unemployed is com­
puted by dividing by 12 the sum of one-half the total for
the previous December plus the monthly totals for January
through November of the current year plus one-half the
total for December of the current year. This method is
used because the counts of registered unemployed are
taken at the end of each month.
The German registered unemployed series has certain
limitations as a precise measure of unemployment. Regis­
trants are drawn predominantly from the wage and salary
labor force. There are indications that certain unemployed
persons, particularly women and teenagers, choose not to
register. Also, unemployed persons who do not want to
work at least 20 hours a week are excluded. They would
be considered as unemployed in the U.S. and German labor
force surveys. On the other hand, registrations include a
number of part-time workers with negligible employment
(Le., working less than 20 hours per week) who want more
work. Under U.S. and German labor force survey defini­
tions, such persons would be regarded as employed. The

fact that the count is made as of a single day instead of a
longer period tends to produce a higher figure than would
a count of persons who have not worked at all during an
entire week, as in the United States. Also, the figures
could include persons who found jobs and started work­
ing after the date on which they initially registered or
renewed their registration.
Microcensus. Since 1957 the monthly count of the regis­
tered unemployed has been supplemented by the Micro­
census, a sample survey of households conducted by the
Federal Statistical Office. The survey, first taken in October
1957, was generally conducted in January, April, July, and
October until 1975. At that time, the quarterly surveys
were discontinued, and only one survey is now conducted
each year, in the last week of April or the 1st week of May,
depending on which week contains no public holiday.
Household samples of 1.0 percent (about 180,000
households in 1960 and 230,000 households currently)
were surveyed in October 1957-62 and April or May of the
following years. Surveys for the other three quarters used
a 0.1-percent sample. Summary survey results are published
periodically in the monthly Wirtschaft und Statistik. The
detailed survey results are published in Series 6 of Bevolkerung und Kultur.
The reference period for the Microcensus is the week
prior to the survey interviews. There is no specified period
for jobseeking activities related to the definition of unem­
ployment.
The unemployed in the Microcensus are defined as
persons 14 years of age and over who are not at work in the
survey week and who state that they are unemployed or
that they are looking for work. Unemployment status is de­
termined by the answers to two questions. The first asks
“Is this person unemployed?” The term unemployed is de­
fined to include persons who normally have a job but are
temporarily out of work as well as persons coming out of
school and looking for an apprenticeship. Persons who
normally do not have an occupation, such as housewives
and pensioners who were not recently working, are not to
be classified as unemployed under this question.
The second question asks “Was this person looking
for work?” An affirmative answer to this question also re­
sults in classification of a person as unemployed if he did
not work in the reference week. This question is designed
to find out how many normally inactive persons are seeking
work.
The total number of unemployed persons—“erwerbslose”-consists of those classified as either unemployed in
the first question or as looking for work in the second.
Those enumerated as unemployed in the first question are
classified as unemployed whether or not they state that
they are looking for work in the second question. Thus,
there may be some inactive workseekers in the Microcensus
unemployment total.




101

There is also no probing into the unemployed person’s
current availability to begin work. Thus a person seeking
work in April but only able to accept it in June is enumer­
ated as unemployed in the April Microcensus. A sudden in­
crease in youth unemployment in April 1968 is partly ex­
plained by the change in the school-leaving date from
March to July that year. The large youth unemployment
recorded in April 1968 includes students who reported
themselves as unemployed but who were looking for work
beginning in July. The 1977 Microcensus (for the labor
force survey of the European Community) asks for the first
time whether persons who claim to be seeking a job are im­
mediately available for employment. The results from the
1977 Microcensus are not yet available.
There is no question concerning layoffs in the Microcensus. German statisticians believe that persons on tempor­
ary layoff are most likely classified as employed in the
Microcensus. They would probably be regarded as “with a
job but not at work.” According to German statisticians,
persons waiting to report to a new job at a later date are
probably classified as economically inactive, and tempor­
arily ill jobseekers would be counted as unemployed.
Foreign workers in Germany are included within the
scope of the Microcensus, and unemployment data have
been shown separately for such workers in recent years.
For example, in May 1975, 134,000 unemployed foreign
workers were reported in the Microcensus. This compares
with 167,000 registered unemployed foreign workers in the
same month.
The following differences between the Microcensus
concepts and U.S. unemployment concepts have been
noted: (1) Current availability to begin work is not re­
quired in the German survey, but is required in the U.S.
definition of unemployment; (2) active jobseeking is not
required in the German survey, but in the United States a
person must have engaged in some specific jobseeking
activity within the past 4 weeks;10 (3) persons on layoff
are probably classified as employed in Germany (unless
they state they are looking for work) and as unemployed in
the United States; (4) persons waiting to report to a new
job at a later date are classified as not in the labor force in
Germany and as unemployed in the United States.
Method o f adjustment. No adjustment is made to the Micro­
census unemployment figures to account for the definitional
differences noted above. The data needed for such an ad­
justment are not available since these categories are not
enumerated in the Microcensus. The overall effect of these
differences is believed to be small. The lack of a test of cur­
rent availability and inclusion of some inactive jobseekers
tend to bias the unemployment figures in an upward direc­
tion for comparison with U.S. concepts; on the other hand,

10Unless awaiting recall from layoff or waiting to start a new job
within 30 days. In these cases, the person would also be counted as
unemployed even though not actively seeking work.

German Microcensus Questionnaire (Excerpt)
VI.

Ja

1

Nein

2

Hausfrau 1
Wchrpfl.
3
Zeit-, Berufssoldat 4
Schuler,
Studierender
an
Grund-/
Haupt(Volks-)/
Realschule 5
Gymnasium 0
Berufsfach-/
Fach-/Technikerschule 7
Ingen.-/Hoh.
Fachschule/
Akademie g
Hochschule/
Universiiat 9
Entfaiit —
Spaite bleibt

Mit
Arbeitslosengeld/
-hilfe 1
A bkurzungen,
auch mehrere,
eintragen
Katalog siehe
letzte Seite
des Bogens

Erwerbstatigkeit

F R A GEN AN

DI E

HAUSHALTSMIT GUEDER

1

Rente, Vermogen, Pen­
sion, Altenteil, Unterstutzung 2

Wenn in den
letzten 2 Jahren
Private
beendet,
Vermittl. 2 genaues Datum
eintragen,
Zeitung 3 sonst das Juhr
der Beendigung
Person!.
Verbmdung
4
Fragen
Bewer37—39, 41
beantworten!
bung
5

Ohne
Arbeits- Arbeits
losen- losengeld/
geld/
-hilfe
3
- hiife 2
IJnterhalt
durch
Sonstige6
Entf. = Eitern,
Entfaiit =
Spaite Ehemann
usw.
4 Spaite
bleibt
bleibt
leer
Soldat
1 leer

Mithelf.

V e rg e s s e n
01
02
03
usw.

Z W E IT E N

S ie

n ic h t,

n a c h

E r w e r b s ta tig k e it z u

In irgendeiner
Weise regelma&ig od. geHausfrau,
legentlich
erwerbs- Oder Wehrpflicht.,
Berufsberufstatig,
soldat,
hauptberuflich
oder nur neben- Schuler,
Student
her, auch mithelfpnd im Familienbetrieb

37

38




24

25

32

5
50 u.
6 mehr = 5 0

Heimarb.

00
01
02
usw.

Ja

1

Bei frijherer
Erwerbsitatigkeit:
Spaite bleibt leer

Nein 2

Hausgew.treibend
7
l

Grunde
siehe
Schlussel

Kfm.Lehrl.
usw.
8

K la r te x t e in tr a g e n
Entfaiit Spaite bleibt
leer

Gew.Lehrl.
usw.
9
Entfaiit =
Spaite
bleibt leer

Ent­
Entfaiit = faiit =
Spaite
Spaite
bleibt leer bleibt
leer

Ent­
faiit =
Spaite
bleibt
leer

Ent­
faiit =
Spaite
bleibt
leer

43

44

E rw e rb s ta tig k eit

E rw e rb s ta tig k e it u n d sons tige U n te rh a itsq u e Hen
23

4

Arbeiter

l

3

Angest.

d e r
fra g e n

2

Beamter,
Richter

leer

22

00
01
02
usw.
bai 98 und mehr
Stunde n = 9 8

Selbstand.,
Zw.-Meist. 1

Arbeitsamt
1

33

34

W enn R enten-,
Pensions- Oder
U nters tiitzu n g s ernpfanger, welcher
Art sind die
Renten, Pensionsoder Unterstiitzungszahlungen ?

Arbeitslos
mit/
ohne
Arbeitslosengeid/
-hilfe

Woraus
werden
iiberw iegend
die Mittel
fur den
Lebensunterhalt
bezogen ?

Eine
Beschaftigung
wird
gesucht
durch . . .

Nur fur
Arbeitsuch.
ohne Tatigk.
Fruhere
Erwerbstatigkeit wurde
beendet.

_

39

40

41

_

2

35

Lfd.
Nr.
der
A rb e ite t bei w e m
Person
(Firma, Dienststelle, Praxis,
im
eigener Betrieb usw.)
Haushalt

1 3| 14

__

36

O rt
(Gemeinde)
der Arbeitsstatte

—

37

G es c h a fts zw e ig
(Branche) des Betriebes,
der Firma usw.

—

38

Gegenwartic
Tatigkeit (Ber

—

39

Tatigkeit
wird
ausgeubt als

42

40

41

42

Nur fur
Nur fu r
Nichtselbst.
Selbstandige
Mit
Anzah!
dem
der fam.fremden Arbeitgeber
Arbeitsverkrafte
wandt,
(ohne
verh.,
Heimverarbeiter)
schwagert
43|44

45

Wenn
weniger
Geleistete * sis
Arbeits- ! 42
stunden Stunden
in der
geleistet,
BeGrund
richts
dafur
woche

46

47! 48

49|50

1_
_

1

I

!

1

I

!

1
!

0 | 1

1

0 i 1

0 I 1

_

0 | 2

_ J___ 1

. J_
_

0 | 2

1

1

0( 2

i

1

0| 3

1

0 | 3

_ I___
_

0 j 3

1

J

1

_L__

1

__L.

1

0 | 4

1_
____________ _____________i -------------------------------------

■

!

.. L_

0 | 4

0| 4

1

i

1

1
1

Germany: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status

Columns 22-34. To be completed for employed and all other persons:
Column 22. Is .. . normally employed in an occasional, or full-time job, or as an unpaid family worker?
Column 25. Is .. . unemployed? If yes, does . . . receive unemployment benefits?
Column 32. What is . . . chief means of livelihood?
-Employment
-R en t, personal fortune, pension, old-age benefits, relief benefits
-Unemployment insurance or unemployment welfare assistance
—Assistance from parents or husband
-Soldier
Column 33. Was . . . seeking work by:
Applying at labor exchange
-Applying at private employment agencies
—Newspapers
-Personal friends or trade union
-Participating in competitive exam
-O ther
Column 34. For jobseekers without a job. If job ended within last 2 years, list the precise date at which
the job ended.
Columns 3 5 4 4 . To be completed for employed persons:
Columns 35-39. Name of employer, location, industry, occupation, and class of worker.
Column 43. Hours worked in survey week.
Column 44. If . . . worked less than 42 hours, give reason.




103

exclusion of persons on layoff and persons waiting to start
a new job biases the figures in a downward direction. These
two opposite effects tend to cancel each other to some ex­
tent. If a bias remains, it is likely to be that the Microcensus
unemployment figures are somewhat overstated in compari­
son with U.S. data. This is because the number of persons
on layoff in most years was probably virtually nil, whereas
the numbers not currently available and not actively seek­
ing work were probably more numerous. Figures on the
number of short-time workers indicate that only in 1967
and 1974-76 could the number laid off the entire survey
week have affected the unemployment rate.
It was‘decided to discard the 0.1-percent survey results
and utilize only the 1-percent Microcensus in making the
adjustments to U.S. concepts. Before 1975, the survey was
conducted quarterly, as mentioned earlier, with a large (1percent) sample in the second quarter (usually) and very
small samples in the other quarters of the year. Data for
the small-sample quarters from 1971 through 1975 have
not been published. The data from the small-sample sur­
veys, even when available, are of questionable reliability
concerning measurement of unemployment because Ger­
man unemployment has been so low in most years that
sampling errors are very high. Furthermore, it was neces­
sary to develop a method which would not depend upon
quarterly data in the future, since such data are no longer
collected. Unemployment data from the large and the
available small-sample surveys are shown in table B-9.
Some adjustments in Microcensus data, discussed be­
low, have been made in order to: (1) Convert the survey
data to approximately the same time of the month as the
registration count; (2) exclude 14-year-olds; and (3) pro­
duce annual averages based on data for only 1 month of
each year.
1. Adjustment o f survey data to end of month. Beginning
with 1963, all large-sample surveys have been con­
ducted in the last full week of April or in early
May.11 During 1959-62, however, most of the sur­
veys were conducted near the beginning of October.12
In order to simplify the prorating of adjustment fac­
tors, the reported unemployment figures for 1959-62
were roughly adjusted to end-of-month estimates on
the basis of the registered unemployed series (table
B-10).

Table B-9. Germany: Unemployment according to the
Microcensus, 1959-76
(Thousands)

1957:
1958:
1959:
I9 6 0:
1961:

1962:

1963:

1964:

1965:

October1 . . .
October 1 . . .
October 1 . . .
October1 . . .
A p r i l ................
J u l y ................
October 1 . . .
January . . . .
A p r i l ................
J u l y ................
October1 . . .
January . . . .
A pril 1 .............
J u l y ................
October . . . .
January . . . .
A p ril 1 .............
J u l y ................
October . . . .
January . . . .
Ma y 1 ................
J u l y ................
October . . . .

2431
2 342
214
152
3 81
3 61
91
3 159
3 89
3 45

Number
unem­
ployed

Date

1966: January . . .
A p ril 1 . . . .
J u l y .............
October . . .
1967: January . . .
A pril 1 . . . .
J u l y .............
October . . .
1968: January . . .
A p ril 1 . . . .
J u l y .............
October . . .
1969: January . . .
A p ril 1 . . . .
J u l y .............
October . . .
1970: January . . .
A p ril 1 . . . .
July . . . . .

102
3 238
86
3 78
3 58
139
97
63
51
118
57
72
61

1971:
1972:
1973:
1974:
1975:
1976:

A p ril 1 . . . .
A p ril 1 . . . .
M ay 1 . . . . .
A p ril 1 . . . .
M ay 1 .............
M ay 1 .............

103
49

66
66
352
290

2 12
191
352
412
308
232
300
214

210
203
242
167
52
206
208
190
381
918
944

1 Large-sample (1-percent) survey. Other surveys are the smallsample (0 . 1 -percent) surveys.
2 Excludes Saar.
3
Excludes West Berlin.

Wirtschaft und Statistik

SOURCE:
Bundesamt), various issues.

(Wiesbaden,

Statistiches

Table B-10. Germany: Adjustment of Microcensus unem­
ployment1 from early-in-month to end-of-month estimate,
1959-62
(Unemployed in thousands)

Date

October
October
October
October

2. Exclusion of 14-year-olds. Since compulsory school­
ing is required until age 15 in Germany, 14-year-olds
should be excluded from the unemployed count. Un­
employment data by age are reported in the results
of the 1-percent Microcensus each year. The propor­
tion of the unemployed who are 14-year-olds is applied

4 -1 0 ,1 9 5 9
2 3 -2 9 ,1 9 6 0
1-7,1961 .
7 -1 3 ,1 9 6 2

Micro­
census
unemployed
. . .
. . .
. . .
...

214
152
91

102

Ratio of
end-ofmonth to
early-inmonth un­
employed 2
1.03
(3 )

1.02

1.06

Unemployed
converted
to
end-ofmonth

220
152
93
108

fig u re s for these surveys were reported both including and
excluding West Berlin. The figures shown here include West Ber­
lin.

2Based on registered unemployed. Since registered unemployed

data refer to the last day of each month, end-of-month unem­
ployment was taken as the registered unemployment figure for the
current month and early-in-month unemployment was taken as the
average of the registered unemployment in the current month and
the preceding month. Thus, the ratio for October was computed
as the registered unemployed in October divided by the average
of registered unemployed in September and October.
3Survey conducted in last week of month.

11 In 1965, 1973, and 1976 the survey was conducted during the
first week of May; in 1975, during the second week of May.
12The October 1960 survey was conducted during the last week
of the month.



Number
unem­
ployed

Date

104

to the estimated annual average unemployed each
year. The resulting number is negligible except in
1968, when an estimated 24,000 14-year-olds were
unemployed.

Table B-11, Germany: Adjustment ratios (Microcensus
unemployed as percent of registered unemployed) using
alternative methods
Year

3. Estimation of annual averages. Annual average adjust­
ment factors for unemployment were derived by cal­
culating the ratio of Microcensus unemployment
from the 1-percent surveys (adjusted to end of month
when necessary) to registered unemployment and
prorating these ratios from year to year. Thus, the
figures for October 1959 through October 1962 and
April 1963 through the latest available survey date
were prorated to obtain annual averages.
Table B-ll shows the adjustment factors used as well as
adjustment factors resulting from using alternative methods.
The method described above is “Method 1” which utilizes
the results of the 1-percent surveys, disregarding the 0.1percent surveys. Method 2 incorporates the 0.1-percent sur­
veys as well as the 1-percent surveys, with prorating between
surveys. Method 3 also incorporates all surveys, but uses the
average of the four quarters (when available) of the Micro­
census unemployed as an approximation of the annual av­
erage. Method 4 uses only the 1-percent surveys and annual­
izes the results based on the ratio of registered unemploy­
ment in the Microcensus month to registered unemployment
for the entire year. These four methods produce unemploy­
ment rates which are quite close to each other, with the
most significant deviations occurring in 1967 and 1970
(table B-12).13
The adjustment factors indicate that the registered un­
employed series normally overcounts unemployment under
survey concepts. In most years, the adjustment factor to
be applied to the registration count is less than 100. Only
in 1960 and 1968-71 was the adjustment factor over 100
(Method 1).

1959s . . .
1960s . . .
1961s . . .
1962s . . .
1963s . . .
1964 . . . .
1965 . . . .
1966 . . . .
1967 . . . .
1968 . . . .
1969 . . . .
1970 . . . .
1971 . . . .
1972 . . . .
1973 . . . .
1974 . . . .
1975 . . . .
1976 (May)

93,7
102.4
90.3
96.6
65.3
60.5
44.6
44,7
73.8
124.3
137.4
135.7
119.6
90 2
82.3
78.1

Method 2 2

Method 3°

Method 4

89 0

88.5
6 72.7
667.4
70.8
71.0
52.1
52.4
44.1
56.9
100.9
129.6
96.0

4

93.7
107.0
82.3
106.5
47.3
66.3
44.2
40.4
58.0
124.5
138.0
138.3
128.6
90.2
83.9
73,7
90.1
86.3

100.8
70,2
72,2
66.7
53.2
58.0
48.6
55.6
116.3
14S.9
90.6
115.3
-

~
-

-

-

-

-

88.2

—

—

86.7

-

-

1 Adjustment ratios derived from 1-percent Microcensuses and
prorated to obtain annual averages.
* Adjustment ratios derived from 0.1 -percent and 1-percent
Microcensuses and prorated to obtain annuai averages.
" Average of quarterly Microcensuses divided by annual average
registered unemployed.
4 Unemployed from 1 -percent Microcensus annualized by divid­
ing by ratio of registered unemployed in Microcensus month to
annual average registered unemployed.
5 Adjustments made in Microcensus data to reflect end-of-month
figures and to include West Berlin.
6 Ratios for 1960 and 1961 estimated (Microcensus not con­
ducted in all four quarters).

Employed persons, according to the Microcensus, com­
prise (a) ail those, including unpaid family workers, who
worked as much as 1 hour during the survey week and (b)
all those who had jobs or businesses at which they had
previously worked, but from which they were temporarily
absent during the survey week because of illness or injury,
industrial dispute, vacation or other leave of absence, or
temporary disorganization of work for reasons such as bad
weather or temporary breakdown. Persons on temporary
layoff and career military personnel are also considered to
be employed.
There are four differences between the U.S. and German
concepts of the labor force. First, the United States excludes
and Germany includes career military personnel. Second,
the United States excludes and Germany includes unpaid
family workers who work less than 15 hours per week.
Third, the registered unemployed rather than the Micro­
census unemployed are included. Finally, Germany in­
cludes 14-year-olds in the labor force, whereas the age at
which compulsory schooling ends is 15.

L ab o r fo rce

. Germany makes annual average estimates of the labor
force which represent the sum of the employed under
Microcensus concepts and the registered unemployed. The
1-percent Microcensus employment data were adjusted for
seasonality on the basis of the 0.1-percent surveys, when
available. Since these small-sample surveys are no longer
conducted, the Microcensus employment data are now ad­
justed to annual averages on the basis of statistics on per­
sons employed derived from notifications by employers
to the statutory social insurance scheme and to the Federal
Institute for Employment.
13 Although the differences in the adjustment factors were rather
large, the unemployment rates using the alternative methods did not
vary much because unemployment was at such low levels in Ger­
many. Thus, adjustment factors of 124.8 (Method 1) and 100.9
(Method 3) yielded 1968 unemployment rates of 1.6 and 1.3 per­
cent, respectively.



Method 1 1

Method of adjustment. The German annual employment
estimates are adjusted by subtracting career military person­
nel, unpaid family workers who worked less than 15 hours
per week, and persons 14 years of age. The number of
105

Table B-12. Germany: Estimated annual average Microcensus unemployed and unemployment rates
based on alternative methods1
Unemployment rates (percent)

Unemployed (thousands)
Year

1959 .............
1960 .............
1 9 6 1 .............
1962 .............
1963 .............
1964 .............
1965 .............
1966 .............
1967 .............
1968 .............
1969 .............
1970 . . . . .
1 9 7 1 .............
1972 . . . . .
1973 .............
1974 .............
1975 .............
1976 .............

Registered
unemployed
540
271
181
154
186
169
147
161
459
323
179
149
185
246
273
582
1,074
1,060

Estimated Microcensus unemployment rate
Registered
unemployment
Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4
Method 4
rate

Estimated Microcensus unemployed
Method 1

Method 2

Method 3

506
278
163
149

481
273
127

478
197

111

121
102
66

124
90
85
78
255
376
268
135
213

109
132

72
339
403
246

202
221
222
225
455
947
2919

122
88
77
71
261
326
232
143
—

—

—

—

—

—

—

-

—

—

-

1 See table B-11 for alternative methods.
2 Using May 1976 factor only.

506
290
149
164

88
112
65
65
266
402
247
206
238

222
229
429
968
915

1.3

3
1
3
3

.7
.7

2.1
1.5
.9
.7

.8
1.1
1.2
2.6
4.7
4.6

1.1

1.8
.8

.3
1.3

.5
.4
.5
.3
.3
.3

.5
.4
.5
.3
.3
.3

1.0

1.0

1.6

1.5

.9

1.0

1.3
.9
.5

2.0
1.1
.6
.6

1.9

.5
.4

.2

3
3
3

.9
1.7
3.7
3.6

.5

.8

—

2.0
1.1
.6
.6
.3
.4

.2
.2
1.0
1.6
1.0
.8
.9

—

—

.8

-

-

.9

-

—

-

—

-

—

1.6
3.8
3.6

NOTE: For adjustment to U.S. concepts, one further adjustment (to exclude 14-year-olds) is made to the data shown (see
table B-13).

the 1963 estimate of wage and salary earners. Beginning
with 1966, the official unemployment rate has been com­
puted by dividing the registered unemployed by the sum
of the registered unemployed and wage and salary employ­
ment based on the Microcensus.
For comparison with the United States, estimated un­
employment based on the Microcensus concepts is divided
by the annual civilian labor force adjusted to U.S. concepts
to obtain the estimated unemployment rate for Germany
(table B-13).

career military personnel can be obtained from annual esti­
mates of the labor force excluding military personnel re­
ported to the Statistical Office of the European Communi­
ties. The proportion of unpaid family workers who usually
work 15 hours or less was reported in the Microcensus
through 1971. Since that time, only the number who ac­
tually worked 15 hours or less in the survey week has been
reported. Figures on those who usually worked 15 hours or
less are more desirable here in order to discount the seasonal
factor in the Microcensus. Therefore, for 1972 and later
years the reported figures on unpaid family workers work­
ing 15 hours or less have been adjusted to a “usual status”
figure based on data for 1967-71, which indicate that 45
percent of the reported number of family workers working
15 hours or less usually do so. The number of 14-year-olds
is obtained from the 1-percent Microcensus results. Instead
of the registered unemployed, the Microcensus unemployed
(adjusted to an annual average as described above) are
added to the adjusted employed to arrive at the German
labor force adjusted to U.S. concepts.

Quarterly and monthly estimates

BLS estimates seasonally adjusted unemployment
rates adjusted to U.S. concepts for Germany. The method
used is as follows:
Unemployment. Data on the number of persons registered
as unemployed require adjustment to correspond to U.S.
definitions of unemployment. Annual adjustment factors
are derived from the Microcensus and are applied on a pro­
rated basis to the seasonally adjusted monthly number of
registered jobless. The Deutsche Bundesbank seasonally
adjusts registered unemployment each month, including
data up to and including the most recent month, using
the multiplicative version of the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Method II, X -ll Variant, seasonal adjustment program.
The data are published in the Statistische Beihefte zu den
Monatsberichten der Deutsche Bundesbank, Reihe 4,
Saisonbereinigte Wirtschaftszahlen.

Unemployment rate

Until 1965, the official German unemployment rate
was computed by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare
by dividing the registered unemployed by the estimated
wage and salary labor force. The Ministry’s estimates of
wage and salary employment were based on notifications
which employers are required to submit to the employment
exchanges showing all job hires and terminations. The
Ministry has not made such estimates since 1963; therefore,
1964 and 1965 unemployment rates were computed using



2.6

Labor force. The Deutsche Bundesbank seasonally ad­
justs Statistisches Bundesamt’s quarterly estimates of em106

plo>ed wage and salary workers, using the same metJiod as
for the registered jobless. To make current quarterly esti­
mates of employment adjusted to U.S. definitions, BLS
applies the prior year’s ratio of employment (adjusted to
U.S. concepts) to the quarterly employed wage and salary
worker figures. BLS then adds the seasonally adjusted
quarterly number of unemployed (adjusted to U.S. con­
cepts) to arrive at the seasonally adjusted quarterly wage
and salary labor force. Revisions are made when Statistisches Bundesamt publishes its current year estimate of
the total labor force.
Unemployment rate. Quarterly jobless rates are computed

by dividing the quarterly seasonally adjusted unemployed,
adjusted to U.S. concepts, by the quarterly seasonally
adjusted labor force, also adjusted to U.S. concepts.
Monthly rates are calculated by dividing monthly season­
ally adjusted (adjusted to U.S. definitions) joblessness by
the quarterly adjusted labor force. Since estimates of the
labor force are only available quarterly, the labor force is
held constant for each of the months which comprise that
quarter. Additionally, the latest available labor force figure
is used until a more current estimate is published. At that
time, the affected quarterly and monthly jobless rates are
recalculated.

Table B-13. Germany: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76
(Numbers in thousands)
Item
Employment. .................................................................................. ... .
Less: Career military personnel. ...................................................
Less: Unpaid family workers working
less than 15 hours1 .....................................................................
Less: 14-year-olds1 .................................................................. ... .
2
Plus: Adjusted Microcensus
unemployed..................................................................... ...
Adjusted civilian labor force...............................................................
R o u n d e d ...........................................................................................

1959

1960

1961

1962

81
143

89
158

84
163

1965

1967

1966

68
160

77
76

45
85

50
69

53
53

25,950
489
61
13

506
278
163
145
121
101
66
72
339
25,851 25,985 26,164 26,206 26,287 26,268 26,380 26,286 25,726
25,850 25,990 26,160 26,210 26,290 26,270 26,380 26,290 25,730

0

0

0

506
510

278
280

163
160

Unemployment rates (percent):
As published5 ............................ .....................................................
A d ju s te d ........................................................................................ .

2.6
2.0

1.3

.8
.6

540
506

1968

271
278

1.1
1969

181
163

1970

154
149
4
145
150

186

169

147

121
0
121
120

102
1
101
100

66
0
66

.7

.8

.8

.6

.5

.4

1971

1972

459
339

0

0

70

72
70

339
340

.7
.3

.7
.3

2.1

1974

1973

161
72

1975

1.3
1976

25,968 26,356 26,668 26,725 26,655 26,712 26,215 25,322 25,076
477
485
524
499
500
529
510
526
532

68

65

62

50

18

10

10

8

57
13

58

58

52

52

8

8

10

10

374
454
917
197
945
217
220
238
221
25,779 26,034 26,294 26,384 26,277 26,356 26,077 25,681 25,399
25,780 26,030 26,290 26,380 26,280 26,360 26,080 25,680 25,400

Registered u n e m p lo y e d .....................................................................
Microcensus u n e m p lo y e d ..................................................................
Less: 14-year-olds4 .........................................................................
Adjusted u n em p loyed .........................................................................
R o u n d e d ......................... ..................................................................

323
403
29
374
370

179
246
238
240

Unemployment rates (percent):
As published5 ..................................................................................
A d ju s te d ...........................................................................................

1.5
1.4

.9
.9

.8

1 Ratio from 1-percent Microcensus of unpaid family workers
usually working less than 15 hours to total unpaid family workers
working less than 15 hours applied to reported annual average.
2Percentage of persons employed under age 15 from 1-percent
Microcensus applied to reported annual average employment.

8

1,074
947

1,060
919

149

185

246

202

221
4
217

273
225
5

582
455

5
197

1

2

2

200

220

222
1
221
220

220
220

454
450

945
940

917
920

.7

.8
.8

1.1
.8

1.2
.8

2.6

4.7
3.7

4.6
3.6

1.7

(see table B-12, Method 1).
4 Percentage of persons unemployed under age 15 from 1 -percent
Microcensus applied to reported annual average unemployment.
5 Registered unemployed as a percent of the wage and salary
labor force.

3 Microcensus unemployment adjusted to an annual estimate



1964

25,797 26,247 26,591 26,690 26,744 26,753 26,887 26,801
228
293
343
401
425
454
456
481

Registered u n em p lo yed ...............................................................
Microcensus unemployed3 . ...............................................................
Less: 14-year-olds4 ...................................................................................
Adjusted unemployed .........................................................................
R o u n d e d ...................... .....................................................................

Employment...........................................................................................
Less: Career military personnel......................................................
Less: Unpaid family workers working
less than 15 h o u rs 1 ....................................................... ...
Less: 14-year-olds2 ................................... .....................................
Plus: Adjusted Microcensus
unemployed..................................................................................
Adjusted civilian labor force...............................................................
Rounded . .........................................................................................

1963

107

fices as of the second Thursday in the month.14 Registrants
must be seeking full-time work and be available to begin
work currently. The count includes claimants to unemploy­
ment benefits and persons who are not claiming benefits,
but it excludes persons temporarily laid off and severely
disabled people who are unlikely to obtain work other than
under special conditions. Separate figures are compiled for
persons temporarily laid off.
The total registrations count includes unemployed
“school leavers,” defined as persons under 18 years of age
who have not entered employment since terminating full­
time education. However, adult students were excluded
from the unemployed beginning in March 1976. Adult
students are defined as persons age 18 or over who are
registered for temporary employment during a school va­
cation, at the end of which they intend to continue in full­
time education. Separate figures are still published on the
number of adult students registered.
Until the mid-1970’s, very few adult students regis­
tered as unemployed. However, beginning in about 1973,
the British National Union of Students has been publi­
cizing among college students the advantages of register­
ing as unemployed during vacation periods. Although
students are usually not eligible for unemployment bene­
fits, they can claim supplementary benefits of approxi­
mately £7 per week. A record number of 121,000 adult
students were registered as of January 8, 1976, consti­
tuting 9 percent of all those registering as unemployed
and prompting British officials to examine their statis­
tical treatment of such students. The Department of Em­
ployment subsequently decided to exclude adult students
from the unemployed count, with the rationale that, un­
like school leavers, students are not looking for permanent
work but only for a vacation job or a passport to supple­
mentary benefits. A change in administrative regulations
was made for the 1976-77 school year under which the
financial incentive to register during the short vacation
breaks at Christmas and Easter was taken away. During
summer vacations, students will still be eligible for supple­
mentary benefits.
Registration is not compulsory but is required for re­
ceipt of unemployment benefits under the National Insur­
ance Scheme or, for persons of working age and capable of
work, allowances under the Supplementary Benefits (form­
erly termed “national assistance”) programs. Supplementary
benefits are payable to those unemployed persons who do
not qualify for unemployment benefits or whose income,
including unemployment benefits, falls short of their
assessed needs and resources. In addition, employed per­
sons not eligible for benefits may register to take advantage
of the free services. In the past, the unemployment service
made about 20 percent of all adult placements.15
14Prior to October 1975, the unemployment count was taken as

Great Britain

British unemployment statistics are the result of col­
lection procedures, concepts, and definitions that differ
substantially from those used in the United States. The
British data are based on a count of registrants at employ­
ment offices (now called “Jobcenters”) or the separate
careers offices for young people. Adjustment to U.S. con­
cepts is particularly difficult because, unlike all other coun­
tries studied here, Britain did not conduct a regular house­
hold survey until 1971. Adjustments for earlier years are
based primarily on the results of the April 1961 population
census and the April 1966 “sample census” of Britain, in
which questions were asked similar to those of the U.S.
labor force survey.
The introduction of the General Household Survey in
1971 fills significant gaps in our knowledge of British labor
force characteristics. For instance, it provides annual average
unemployment rates under definitions quite close to U.S.
definitions. Figures from the censuses require many adjust­
ments to adapt them to U.S. concepts and they relate to
only one point in time—a week in April. The Household
Survey also provides the first indication of the number of
people classified as “looking for work” who were not ac­
tively doing so. Finally, the government has decided not to
hold a mid-decade partial census as in 1966. Therefore, the
yearly figures on population structure from the General
Household Survey will become more and more important
in filling the statistical gap between 1971 and the next
decennial census. The results of the 1971 through 1974
surveys have been published and are analyzed here. When
results of the later surveys become available, some re­
visions may have to be made in the adjusted data for 1975
onward.
Prior to the publication of the 1971 General House­
hold Survey, British unemployment rates were adjusted to
U.S. concepts based upon the 1961 census and 1966 sample
census. For the years after 1966, adjustments based upon
the 1966 sample census were applied. The use of adjustment
factors from a year when unemployment was low to adjust
data for years when unemployment was high is subject to a
substantial margin of error. In view of the results of the
1971 household survey, the previously published adjusted
unemployment rates for the period 1967-72 were signifi­
cantly overstated. The 1971 survey indicates that the pro­
portion of unemployed persons who register increases
substantially as unemployment increases. The inverse of
this relationship was confirmed in the 1973 survey results:
The proportion of unemployed persons who registered de­
creased as unemployment declined.
Unemployment

of the Monday nearest the middle of the month.

Registered unemployed. The regularly published British un­
employment statistics are based on a count of registrants at
employment offices or youth employment service careers of­



15Manpower Services Commission, Annual Report 1974-75 (Lon­
don, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1974), p. 19.
108

Persons who register as unemployed receive credits
toward their national insurance contributions. These credits
are received even if persons have exhausted their benefits
and, under 1975 legislation, even if they have been disquali­
fied from receiving benefits. These credits provide a further
incentive to register since they count toward a person’s eli­
gibility for retirement pension.
The completeness of coverage of the British unem­
ployment statistics is a function of the extent to which per­
sons looking for work register at the employment offices.
Failure to register can occur for several reasons. Some per­
sons looking for work and eligible for benefits may decide
not to register immediately in order to avert the possibility
of having to accept an undesirable job, if offered, on penalty
of being disqualified from benefits.
Persons who are out of work and sick will be registered
as such and not as unemployed. They are not entitled to
register as unemployed and claim benefits since they cannot
satisfy the condition of being available for work. Persons
registered as unemployed who fall sick are transferred to
the sickness register maintained by the Department of Health
and Social Security. However, some persons may register as
nonclaimants to benefits when they are nearly recovered
from their illness in order to find a job quickly.
Persons also may not register because they are in­
eligible to receive unemployment benefits. Such persons
include: (1) Married women and workers over retirement
age (65 for men; 60 for women) who may accept the op­
tion of not joining the National Insurance System;16 (2)
teenagers seeking their first job and other new entrants
and reentrants to the labor force1 7 (persons must have at
least 26 weeks of employment covered by the unemploy­
ment insurance system before they are eligible for bene­
fits); (3) persons who have voluntarily quit their previous
job or who were discharged for cause (such persons are in­
eligible for benefits for a maximum of 6 weeks); and (4)
previously self-employed persons and unpaid family workers.
Of course, some members of the above groups may register
in order to obtain supplementary benefits, credits toward
national insurance contributions, or help in finding a job.
Married women are rarely eligible for supplementary bene­
fits, but members of the other groups listed above may be
eligible.
16 According to a report in the British publication Labour Re­
search, 75 percent of British married women “opt out” of the
National Insurance Scheme. (See “Unemployment Still Rising,”
Labour Research, October 1970, p. 155). This represents an in­
crease from 60 percent estimated by the Department of Employ­
ment in 1960.1
7
17 Young persons under 18 seeking their first employment who
register for job placement with the youth employment service
careers office are included in the British registered unemployment
count. However, there is no compulsion to register and, in 1971,
only about 15,000 school leavers who had not yet been in insured
employment were included in the British registered unemployed
total. By 1975, this figure had risen to 45,000 as labor market con­
ditions worsened considerably.



109

It should be noted that, under the Social Security Act
of 1975, women who marry after April 6, 1977, will no
longer have the option of not joining the National Insur­
ance System. The Department of Employment expects that
removal of this option will result in a large increase in female
unemployment registrations. Preliminary forecasts suggest
that about 580,000 women will have lost the opportunity
to “opt out” of the system by April 1978 and that this
number will increase to about 2.2 million by 1988.
In two respects, British registered unemployment
data are more inclusive than U.S. unemployment statistics.
First, the British data include those out of work on the day
of the count who worked during the rest of the week. Such
persons would be counted as employed in the United States.
Second, workers may continue to register as unemployed
even though they have really given up hope of finding
work. Such persons would be considered as discouraged
workers in the U.S. labor force survey, and hence, would be
enumerated as not in the labor force. Inmost other respects,
however, British unemployment statistics are less compre­
hensive than those obtained from the U.S. labor force sur­
vey. The extent of undercount can be estimated by analy­
sis of statistics from population censuses and the General
Household Surveys.
Census statistics. Unemployment statistics, differing in con­
cepts from the registered unemployed series, are available
from the decennial population census of Great Britain. The
most recent censuses were conducted in April 1961 and
April 1971. Results of the 1971 population census are not
analyzed here, however, because of the availability of the
General Household Survey (GHS) for that year. Definitions
used in the GHS are more closely comparable with U.S.
concepts than the census statistics.
In addition, British statistical authorities conducted
what they termed a “sample census” in April 1966, which
also yielded detailed statistics on unemployment. Data were
not collected in exactly the same way in 1961 and 1966,
however, and certain adjustments must be made to put the
two sources on an equivalent basis.
Although the population censuses are the major source
for evaluating the British unemployment figures for the
1960’s, they have important limitations. A major limitation
of the decennial censuses is that persons reported as unem­
ployed were not asked whether they were registered at the
employment office. In the 1966 sample census and the
General Household Surveys, this question was asked. In ad­
dition, the decennial censuses and the 1966 sample census
are self-enumerations-i .e., the respondent fills in the forms
himself. The Household Survey utilizes experienced inter­
viewers, trained to interpret the questions carefully. Also,
the more probing questions asked in the Household Survey
allow for more precise counts of the unemployed. Finally,
the Household Survey relates to the full year whereas the
censuses relate to only 1 week in April.
In the 1966 sample census, persons were classified as
“out of employment” if they were: (1) Registered as unem­

ployed; (2) not registered but otherwise looking for work;
(3) unable to seek work because of temporary sickness or
injury; or (4) had found a job and were waiting to start
work at a future date.
In the 1961 census, the definition of “out of employ­
ment” simply stated “Economically active persons out of
employment during the whole of the week before the
census, or ceasing to be employed during that week . . . ,
but expecting to work again.” Also included were persons
who were unable to seek work because of sickness or in­
jury. In both the 1961 and 1966 censuses, persons at school
(including university) were classified as economically in­
active even if they were seeking work or did paid work dur­
ing holidays, weekends, or other free time.
The 1961 census provided data on the number of per­
sons “out of employment” according to two categories:
sick and all other. In 1966, additional detail was obtained
as to whether persons “out of employment” were registered
at employment or careers offices. In 1961, only data with
reference to the week preceding census day, April 23, were
collected. Registered unemployed counts were taken on
April 10 and May 15, 1961; therefore, there is no direct
correspondence between registration and census dates for
1961. The 1966 census provided information as of the cen­
sus day as well as the census week. The Monday of census
week in 1966, April 18, corresponded to the date of the
registered unemployed count for April.
Data from these censuses indicate that the registra­
tion statistics undercount unemployment in Great Britain
to a large extent. The concept “out of employment” used
in the British censuses is fairly close in definition to the
U.S. concept of “unemployed.” However, there are some
important differences between the British census and U.S.
survey definitions which should be accounted for before
any conclusions are drawn.
A post-enumeration survey of the 1961 census in­
dicated that the number of married women who reported
themselves as economically active needed to be increased
by 5 percent; for single, widowed, and divorced women, the
corresponding figure was 1 percent. Furthermore, the Min­
istry of Labor (now Department of Employment) stated
that these may well be underestimates of the census under­
count.18 The 1966 sample census involved as underenum­
eration of 1.5 percent for all categories of persons.19
In the 1961 census, anyone who had a job but be­
came unemployed during the census week was counted as
“out of employment.” The 1966 census data, as of census
day, also include as “out of employment” persons who
worked later in the week, but, in addition, the data provide
information on the number of persons out of work the

entire week. Persons who do any work at all during the
survey week are classified as employed in the United States.
Some persons who were enumerated as “out of em­
ployment, sick” in the censuses would probably not be
counted as unemployed under U.S. definitions. This may
have resulted from misinterpretation of the census ques­
tionnaire by persons permanently disabled or suffering
illnesses of more than a temporary nature.20 Also, persons
collecting sickness or injury benefits would be likely to
classify themselves as “out of employment, sick” even if
they were not interested in obtaining a job when able to
work again.
Persons on temporary layoff were classified as
employed in the censuses. They would be counted as
unemployed in U.S. statistics.
In the United States, a person must have taken active
steps to find work in the past 4 weeks to be classified as un­
employed (unless on layoff or waiting to start a new job).
Neither the 1961 nor the 1966 census provided information
on whether persons who said they were seeking work
had actually taken steps to find work, Some information
on this point was obtained from the household surveys.
Method of adjustment based on census statistics. Coeffi­
cients of adjustment were derived from the 1961 and 1966
census results and applied to the regularly published British
statistics on the registered unemployed. Adjustment factors
for 1962 through 1965 were interpolated from the 1961
results. Factors for 1959 and 1960 were assumed to be
the same as for 1961. Because the degree of undercount
varies considerably by age and sex, four separate adjust­
ment factors were derived—for adult men, adult women,
teenage boys, and teenage girls. Teenagers are defined as
persons 15 to 19 years of age.
Derivation of adjustment factors from the 1961 and
1966 censuses required several modifications in the pub­
lished census results in order to account for the differences
noted above between the British censuses and the U.S.
labor force survey (tables B-14 and B-15). Four adjustments
were made:
1.
Increasing the number of unemployed adult women
in the 1961 census to account for those improperly enum­
erated as economically inactive. Based on the post-enumera­
tion survey of the 1961 census, economically active married
women should be increased by 195,000 and economically
active single, widowed, and divorced women by 39,000.
These uncounted women were persons who regarded their
principal occupation as that of housewife or home duties
and failed to enumerate themselves as employed, even
though they were working at a part-time job, or as unem­
ployed, even though they were looking for work.
A follow-up survey of the 1966 sample census supports this
conclusion. See Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Social
Survey Division, A Quality Check on the 1966 10 Percent Sample
Census o f England and Wales (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office, 1972), p. 80.
20

Ministry o f Labour Gazette, November 1965, p. 479.
19 Unemployment Statistics: Report of an Inter-Departmental
Working Party (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, November
1972), p. 33.



110

It is a safe assumption that a high proportion of these
omitted women were unemployed at the time of the census.
In the absence of any information on this point, for this
study it was arbitrarily assumed that 75 percent of the
undercount represents part-time workers and 25 percent
represents unemployed workers. This yields an upward ad­
justment of 59,000 to the adult women “out of employ­
ment” in the 3961 census. No similar adjustment was needed
for the 1966 census results, since underenumeration was
apparently proportionally the same for all groups (1.5 per­
cent). A 1.5-percent increase in all categories, then, would
not change the ultimate adjustment factors.
2. Excluding persons classified as unemployed who
worked at any time during census week. The 1966 census
indicated that 4 to 7 percent of those reported as “out of
employment” on census day actually did some work during
the week (proportions varied by the four age/sex categories
for which adjustments were determined and also by
whether persons were registered or not registered as unem­
ployed). No data were collected on the number of persons
classified as “out of employment” who worked during the
census week in 1961; therefore, the 1966 proportions were
assumed applicable to the 1961 data for adjustment pur­
poses.
3. Adjusting downward the number of persons re­
ported as (iout o f employment, sick. ” A very large number
of persons were enumerated as “out of employment, sick”
in both the 1961 and 1966 censuses. In 1966,31 percent of
the total number of persons “out of employment” on cen­
sus day were listed as sick, down from 44 percent in 1961.
According to the 1966 census, only 10 percent of all
persons registered as unemployed were also reported as sick;
however, 45 percent of the unregistered persons “out of
employment” were reported as sick. The 1961 census pro­
vided no data according to whether a person “out of em­
ployment” was registered or not registered.
It is assumed that the registered unemployed who
were also sick in the 1966 census would be classified as un­
employed under U.S. definitions (given above adjustment
for those who worked sometime during the week). How­
ever, the unregistered unemployed who were sick probably
included a substantial number of persons who would not be
counted as unemployed in the United States. In order to
arrive at a reasonable estimate, it was assumed that the pro­
portion of persons registered as unemployed and also sick
is the same as the proportion of unregistered persons who
were sick.
Using this method of estimation, only 24,400 of the
185,100 unregistered, sick (adjusted to exclude those who
worked during the week) in 1966 are assumed to be un­
employed by U.S. definitions. In light of the results of the
1971 Household Survey, this appears to be a reasonable
estimate. Again, 1966 relationships had to be assumed for
1961.



Ill

4.
Subtracting persons not actively seeking work.
The censuses do not provide any information on this point.
However, the 1971 General Household Survey indicates
that 22.3 percent of the number of persons seeking work
but not registered as such had not actually taken any steps
to find work in the survey week. No details were given by
age or sex. Allowing for the possibility that some may have
sought work in the previous 4 weeks, this percentage was
scaled down to 15 percent for adjustment purposes. Thus,
15 percent of the “not registered, other” category—adjusted
to exclude persons waiting to start a new job— sub­
was
tracted for each age/sex group.
No adjustment is included above for persons on
temporary layoff. Since figures are available each year on
which to base an estimate of the number of such persons,
an adjustment is made on table B-18 rather than on tables
B-14 through -16 to include them in the unemployed count.
There is also no adjustment made to account for the fact
that all full-time students are classified as economically in­
active in the censuses. There is no information available as
to the degree to which such persons register as unemployed.
The Department of Employment began to separately iden­
tify registered unemployed adult (age 18 and over) students
in July 1971 and has made annual estimates back to 1967.
Further information on adult students appears in the sec­
tion on the General Household Survey.
In summary, the numbers of registered and unregis­
tered unemployed persons in the 1961 and 1966 cen­
suses were adjusted to exclude those who did some work
during the census week; further adjustments were made
to the unregistered unemployed to exclude persons who
were not actually seeking work. These adjustments de­
flate considerably the number of persons reported as un­
employed for comparability with U.S. concepts. For ex­
ample, 61 percent of the persons reported as “out of
employment” in the 1961 census and 70 percent in the
1966 census are considered to be unemployed under
U.S. concepts.
The adjusted unemployed totals were compared with
the registered unemployed count for each of the four age/
sex groups. The census day registration count was available
from the results of the 1966 census; in the 1961 census,
however, such data were not collected. For 1961, the ad­
justment factors were calculated based on interpolations
of registered unemployed data made by the Department
of Employment. The resultant adjustment factors to be
applied to the regularly published unemployment statistics
were as follows:
1961
Adult m e n ............................................................
Adult women . ................ ............................... .
Teenage boys ........................................................
Teenage g i r l s ........................................................

22
93
123
152

1966
38
182
65
101

The method of applying these factors is described later in
the section titled “Combining the census and survey analy­
ses.”

These figures indicate that the propensity for unem­
ployed adults to register declined between 1961 and 1966,
whereas the teenage propensity to register increased. These
changes in the propensity to register were unrelated to cy­
clical factors since recorded unemployment was 1.4 percent
in both 1961 and 1966. The increased propensity to register
on the part of teenagers is probably related to a more active
effort by the Youth Employment Service. During the early
1960’s much criticism was leveled at the service, perhaps
spurring it to greater efforts to register young people.21
A partial explanation for the large increase in under­
registration or decline in the propensity to register of adults
may have been the growing number of workers receiving
payments in lieu of notice of dismissal. Such persons are
ineligible to draw unemployment benefits simultaneously
and, hence, would probably delay registration. Notice of
dismissal (with length of notice based on length of service)
became compulsory under the “Contracts of Employment
Act” of 1963.22

Another element in the explanation is the Redundancy
Payments Act of 1965 which gave workers the right to
claim severance pay from their employers based on age and
21 The Youth Employment Service was reviewed by a Working
Party of the National Youth Employment Council which published
its report in December 1965. The report made a number of recom­
mendations for improving the work of the service: (1) Youth em­
ployment offices should establish earlier contact with young people
at school and with their parents; (2) there should be closer partner­
ship between the service and the schools in the preparatory stages
of career guidance; (3) the staffing of the service should provide
for more specialization in dealing with the needs of particular
groups of young people; and (4) the service should experiment with
more intensive methods of following up the progress of young
people at work. Action was taken to promote the further
development of the service along the lines recommended in the
report.
22This law imposes upon employers the obligation of giving a
*
minimum period of notice to all employees continuously employed
tor over 26 weeks, as follows: 1 week’s notice for those with up to 2
years’ service; 2 weeks for 2-5 years’ service; and 4 weeks for service
of 5 years or more.

Table B-14. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the 1961 census
(Numbers in thousands)
Item

Teenagers3

Adults

Total
Male

Registered unemployed on Monday of census week2 .
Out of employment 3 . .......................................................
Registered2 ............................................................... ... .
Sick5 ...............................................................................
Other 5 ............................................................................
Not reg istered ......................................................
Sick ..................................................................... ...
Other ............................................................................
Percent unemployed on Census Monday
who did not work in census week :6
R e g is te re d ......................................... .........................
Not reg istered ...................................................................
Census unemployed adjusted to exclude
those who worked in census week : 7
R e g is te re d .........................................................................
Not reg istered ...................................... ............................
Sick ...............................................................................
Other ................... ........................................................
Unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts:
R e g is te re d .........................................................................
Not registered...................................................................
Sick® ...............................................................................
Other ............................................................................
Less: Persons not actively seeking work 9 ......................
Total adjusted u nem p loyed ...............................................
Percent of registered unemployed ................................
Adjustment fa c to r...................................................

Female

201.0

14.0
37.7
14.0

19.3
181.7
245.3
192.2
53.1

75.0
4 2 1 7.7
75.0
8.5
66.5
142.7
65.4
4 77.3

—

96.0
93.2

93.9
93.2

285.8
405.3
249.9
155.4

193.0
228.6
179.1
49.5

70.4
133.0
61.0
72.0

285.8
172.4
17.0
155.4
11.7
446.5
149
49

193.0
54.8
5.3
49.5
2.7
245.1

70.4
81.2
9.2
72.0

300.0
734.6
300.0
29.4
270.6
434.6
268.1
166.5

446.3

201.0

12 2
22

115- to 19-year-olds.
2There were no questions asked on whether persons were regis­
tered as unemployed in the 1961 census, The data shown are in­
terpolations by the Department of Employment from the regis­
tration counts of April 10 and May 15.
3 Data (except for the registered unemployed) relate to per­
sons "out of employment" the entire census week as well as to
persons who had a job but became unemployed during the week.
4 Includes 59,000 women not reported as unemployed in the
1961 census. This represents an adjustment for the undernumeration of economically active women.
5 Breakdown of registered unemployed into "sick" and "other"
estimated by using 1966 proportions.




Male

Female

10,0
32.9

.6

10.0
1.0

13.4
23.7
4.1
19.6

9.0
22.9
6.4
16.5

93.9
93.4

92.5
94.3

13.1

9.3

22.1

21.6
6.0

3.8
18.3
13.1
19,1

.8
18.3

6.6

1.0

145.0
193
93

31.2
223
123

15.6
9.3
17.3
1.7
15.6
1.4
25.2
252
152

6 Figures from 1966 census. Such data were not collected in 1961,
7 Estimated by applying above proportions of persons who did
not work in census week to figures reported in census which in­
clude some persons who worked during census week.
8Calculated by assuming that ratio of "not registered, sick" to
"not registered, other" is the same as ratio of "registered, sick" to
"registered, other."

9 Estimated as 15 percent of the "not registered, other" category,
adjusted to exclude persons waiting to start a new job. (According
to the 1971 General Household Survey, 63 percent of males and 39
percent of females in the "not registered, other" category were
waiting to start a new job.)
112

Table B-15. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the 1966 census
(Numbers in thousands)

Registered unemployed on Monday of census week2 .
Out of employment 3 ..................................
Registered . ......................................................................
Sick ...............................................................................
Other ...................................................................... ... .
Not registered..................................................................
Sick ...............................................................................
Other ...................... ...............................................
Percent unemployed on census Monday
who did not work in census week:
Registered .........................................................................
Not registered ................................ ..................................
Census unemployed adjusted to exclude
those who worked in census week :4
Registered ................................... ............................
Not registered ...................................................................
Sick ................................................ ... . ................... ...
Other ................................... . ............................... ... .
Unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts:
R e g is te re d ...................................... . ...............................
Not registered . ................................ ...............................
Sick5 ...............................................................................
Other ................................................................... ... . .
Less: Persons not actively seeking work 6 ................... ...
Total adjusted unemployed
.......................... ..................
Percent of registered ......................................................
Adjustment fa c to r...................................................... ... .

Teenagers1

Adults

Total

item

Female

Male

Male

Female

296.3
731.2
296.3
28.0
268.3
434.8
198.5
236.3

194.2
393.5
194.2
18.7
175.5
199.4
116.1
83.3

57.3
238.6
57.3
6.5
50.8
181.3
69.5

26.2
50.6
26.2

11 1 .8

20.2

8.8
21.0

-

96.0
93.2

93.9
93.2

93.9
93.4

92.5
94.3

282.2
405.6
185.1
220.5

186.4
185.8
108.2
77.6

53.8
169.0
64.8
104.2

24.7
22.7
3.8
18.9

17.3
28.1
8.3
19.8

282.2
244.9
24.4
220.5
16.7
510.4
173
73

186.4
85.9
8.3
77.6
4.3
268.0
138
38

53.8
117.5
13.3
104.2
9.5
161.8
282
182

24.7
19.7

18.6
48.5
18.6
1.7
16.9
29.8

1.1
25.1
24.3
4.1

17.3

.8

21.8
2.0

18.9

19.8

1.1

1.8

43.3
165
65

37.3

201
101

6
Estimated as 15 percent of the "not registered, other" category
adjusted to exclude persons waiting to start a new job. (According
to the 1971 General Household Survey, 63 percent of males and 39
percent of females in the "not registered, other" category were
waiting to start a new job.)

115- to 19-year-oids.

2 Data on registrations were collected in the 1966 census,
3 According to status of persons on Monday of census week.
4 Estimated by applying above proportions of persons who did
not work in census week to figures as of census Monday.
5Calculated by assuming that ratio of "not registered, sick" to
"not registered, other" is the same as ratio of "registered, sick" to
"registered, other."

Table B-16. Great Britain: Derivation of adjustment factors from the 1971 General Household Survey (GHS)
Item
GHS data inflated to universe
levels:2
T o t a l ...................................................
Looking for work ......................
Registered . . . . . . . . . . .
Not registered . .......................
Persons in "looking for work"
category not actively seeking
work 3 . , . ............................................
Adjusted unemployed4 ..........................
Registered unemployed 5 ......................
Adjusted unemployed as percent
of registered unemployed . . . . ,
Adjustment f act or . . . . . . . . . . .

Total
Female

Male

Female

Male

582,000
446,000
412,000
34,000

357,000
224,000
104,000

493,000

285,000
—
—

89,000

5,000
577,000
640,000

18,000
339,000
119,000

4,000
489,000
562,000

90

285
185

87
” 13

“ 10

120,000

1

15- to 19-year-olds. In the GHS, data are not shown separately
for the age group 15-19. Figures are shown for 15- to 17-year-olds
and 18- to 24-year-olds. The number of 18- to 19-year-olds in the
18-24 age group was estimated based on the results of the 1971 pop­
ulation census.
2 Universe unemployment estimates were not published in the
GHS. The figures shown were derived by estimating male and fe­
male civilian employment from other sources and utilizing the
male and female unemployment rates reported in the GHS to solve




Teenagers1

Adults

Male

113

—
—

Female

72,000

—

—

~~

-

—

—

14,000
271,000
83,000

1,000
88,000

68,000

78,000

36,000

327
227

113
13

189
89

4,000

for unemployment in the following relationship: U + (E + U) = R
(where U = unemployment; R = unemployment rate; E = employ­
ment).
3 Estimated as 15 percent of persons looking for work, but not
registered. Broken down into adult and teenage components accord­
ing to same proportions as total unemployment.
4Total unemployment less persons not actively seeking work.
“ As reported by Department of Employment.

length of service. At the maximum, the redundancy pay­
ments can provide 30 weeks’ pay. Where redundancy pay­
ments are made, the initial effect is that the newly unem­
ployed person will not be forced to register at the employ­
ment office because of an immediate need for money. Such
a person can take the time to look for suitable work and
not be obliged to be available at all times to answer the em­
ployment office’s summons when a vacancy occurs.
The General Household Survey. A new type of survey, the
General Household Survey, was conducted in Great Britain
for the first time in 1971. It is a continuous multipurpose
sample survey covering a total of about 12,000 private
(noninstitutional) households containing about 35,000
people over the year. Although conducted monthly, the
survey is designed so that the minimum period over which
it is representative of Great Britain is a quarter-year; suc­
cessive quarters are added together to provide annual figures.
Results of the first year’s interviews were published in
1973; the 1972 through 1974 surveys were published in
1975 through 1977.23
The survey collects information about employment,
unemployment, housing, education, health, mobility, and
household makeup in such a way that each subject can be
related to the others. It provides much information on
social structure and trends.
A comparison between midyear estimates based on
the 1971 census and GHS annual results indicates that the
GHS gives a good representation of the population in private
households. However, young people aged 15 to 24 may be
underrepresented to some degree in the GHS; married
women are probably slightly overrepresented.
The first two surveys covered the population 15 years
of age and over. In 1973, when the school-leaving age was
raised to 16, the survey also began to cover 16-year-olds
and over. The Armed Forces are not excluded from the
labor force by definition; they would be included if they
reside in private households. However, most military per­
sonnel reside in military establishments which are not cov­
ered by the sample.
Employed persons, by GHS definition, are persons
who had a job for pay or profit in the reference week, even
if it was only for a few hours. Casual or seasonal workers
are counted as employed only if they were working during
the specified week. Persons absent from work because of
holiday, strike, illness, or temporary layoff are regarded as
employed. Unpaid family workers were classified as eco­
nomically inactive in the 1971 through 1975 surveys. Be­
ginning in 1976, wives working 15 hours or more in their
husbands’ businesses have been treated as employed whether
2 3 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Social Survey Di­

vision, The General Household Survey: Introductory Report (Lon­
don, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1973); The General House­
hold Survey 1972 (London, HMSO, 1975); The General House­
hold Survey 1973 (London, HMSO, 1976); and The General House­
hold Survey 1974 (London, HMSO, 1977).



114

they were paid or not. Since the great majority of family
workers are paid in Great Britain, this change will have a
very small effect.
Full-time students who worked part time were counted
as employed in the 1971 survey, unlike the practice in the
censuses where full-time students are regarded as economi­
cally inactive. In 1972 and subsequent household surveys,
however, working full-time students were placed in the
economically inactive category. In 1972, data both includ­
ing and excluding the working students were published.
These data indicate that the annual average number of
working students is so small that their exclusion does not
affect the unemployment rate.
Persons taking courses in government training centers
are normally classified as economically inactive in the GHS
since the stipend they receive is not considered a wage pay­
ment. However, if an employer pays an employee to attend
a course at a government training center, the person would
be classified as employed.
Unemployed persons, by GHS definitions, consist
of those who, in the reference week, were looking for work,
would have looked for work if they had not been temporar­
ily sick, or were waiting to take up a job they had already
obtained. Because the Household Survey is conducted by
experienced interviewers rather than by self-enumeration
(as the census), the category of persons who would have
been looking for work but for temporary illness is more
precisely determined. Interviewers are given a definition of
“temporary” for this question in the Household Survey—
i.e., an illness lasting 28 days or less. No such definition
appeared in the census questionnaires or instructions.
As noted earlier, persons on temporary layoff are re­
garded as employed rather than unemployed. Full-time
students who were looking for work would be counted as
unemployed in 1971 and not in the labor force in 1972 and
following years. The number of students looking for work
was apparently almost nil in 1972. It should be noted that
students in boarding schools are not surveyed in the GHS,
which relates to private households only. Thus, students
are most likely underrepresented in the GHS.
Persons who said they were looking for work in the
GHS were asked, additionally, what steps they took to find
work in the survey week. In 1971, this question elicited the
fact that 22.3 percent of the people looking for work but
not registered as unemployed did nothing more than look
at job vacancies in the newspapers or simply wait for
“something to turn up.”
In 1971, the GHS did not divide those waiting to take
up jobs and those temporarily sick by whether or not they
were registered. Data on the unregistered unemployed were
restricted to persons who said they were looking for work
in the survey week. In the 1972 and 1973 surveys, questions
on registration as unemployed were asked of persons look­
ing for work and persons waiting to start a new job. in
1974 and following surveys, all categories of unemployed
persons were asked whether they were registered as unem-

British Genera- Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

ss 457/3B

GENERAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
IN CONFIDENCE

INDIVIDUAL SCHEDULE

PER.
DAY

YEAR

MONTH

AREA.

Date of Interview•

SER.

HLD.

Time Individual Schedule started

CODE

EMPLOYMENT

TO ALL

Were you working for pay or profit
at any time last week - that is the
7 days ending last Sunday?

GO TO Q.2

Yes .......... .

N o --- * X

ASK (a)

IF NO
(a)

Even though you weren1t
working did you have a
job which you were away
from last week?

GO TO Q. 2

Yes ••••••••••••••

No ---- ASK (1)

IF NO
(l)
PROMPT AND
RING FIRST
THAT
APPLIES

Last week were you
waiting to take up a job which you had
already obtained? ................
out of employment but looking for work? ..
or would you have looked for work but for
temporary sickness or injury? ..•.

>GO TO Q.2

NONE OF THESE

GO TO Q.23
ON PAGE 9

IF CODED 1 OR 3-5 AT Q.l
2.
3.

1

Do you consider yourself to be a part-time
worker or a full-time worker?

Part-time
Full-time

2

Do you consider yourself to be a seasonal
worker - that is, someone who reckons to
work part of the year only?

Yes .....
No .... ..

2

1

MAIN JOB LAST WEEK (MOST RECENT IF CODED 3, 4 OR 5 AT Q.l)
NEVER WORKED, RING 4•

Occupation ......................................

OFF. USE

I

II

Industry

III
employee ......
self-employed .
IF MANAGER, SUPERINTENDENT OR SELF-EMPLOYED




IF NOT MANAGER ETC, DNA
(a)

25 or more

Number of employees in
the establishment

NOW REFER BACK
If coded
If coded
If coded
If coded

TO
i
3
4

1 - 2 4 .....
N i l ......

Q. 1

go to Q. 5 on page
go to Q.l? on page
go to Q , 16 on page
go to Q.19 on page

115

2
7
7

8

1
0
2

British General Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)
CODE

TO THOSE WORKING LAST WEEK (CODED 1 AT Q .l)
5. Last week did you have any other job or b u sin ess
in a d d itio n to the one you have ju st to ld me about?
IF YES
(a) O ccupation ........................................................................
Industry ..............................................................................
employee . . . .
self-em p loyed

Yes
No
OFF. USE

I

1
2

ASK (a)
ASK Q.6

______

II

........

1

____. . . .

2

6. How many hours a week do you u su a lly work (in your main job)
exclu d in g meal breaks and overtim e? ------------- ........-...... - ..... ■
7. Were you away from work at a ll la s t week
for reasons other than bu sin ess?
Yes ,.
No . . .

1
2

ASK (a)
SEE Q .8

Own illn e s s or a ccid en t . . .
H oliday ...........................................
S trik e a t own p lace of work
S h o r t-tim e/la y o ff .................
Began or lo s t job in week .
Other (SPECIFY) .........................

1

ASK (b)

IF YES




(a) Why were you away from work?

2
3

4
5

1
2

Yes . . .
No . . <.

(c) When did th is period away from work
sta r t?
date ..........
(d) When did i t fin ish ?
DATE ..........
IF

D ID

NOT FINISH DURING LAST WEEK, RING — ------------ >

116

(d)

6

(b) Were you p aid , or w ill you be p aid , any
N ational Insurance Sick ness B en efit
for la s t week?
Yes
No
(1) Did th is in clu d e or were you
a ls o paid any supplem entary
allow ance?
ALTERNATIVE WORDING WHERE APPROPRIATE
W ill th is in clu d e or w ill you a lso be
paid any supplem entary allow ance?

>ASK (c)&

ASK (b l)
ASK (c)&
(d)

1
2

iASK (c)&
'
(d)

SSKE n .8

British Genera! Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)
CODE

TO EMPLOYEES ONLY

IF SELF-EMPLOYED, DNA . . .

X

CO TO
Q. 10

8. Does your employer pay you anything
when you are o ff sick?

1

Yes
No
DK

Yes
No
DK

2

Yes
No

9. Do you expect to r e ceiv e a pension
from your employer when^ you re tir e ?

2

2

3

1
3

I NOW ASK
i Q. 10

TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND SELF-EMPLOYED*
1
10. Have you reta in ed any pension r ig h ts
from a previous job which you are
e ith e r drawing now or w ill be able
to draw in the future?

11. Have you been w ith your p resent
em p loyer/self-em ployed (in your
main job)
for le s s than 6 months? .............................
RUNNING
for 6 months but le s s than 12 months?
PROMPT
for 12 months or more? ................................




(a )

1

1

I ASK (a )-

3

I

2

How many changes o f employer have
you made in the la s t 12 months? — -......■■■■ "■■■...................- ■
IF NO PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT IN LAST 12 MONTHS, ENTER "0”

(b) How long had you been a c tiv e ly looking
for work b efore you found your presen t
job?
Days ...................................................
Weeks .................................................
Months ...............................................................................
(STATE CALENDAR, A WEEKLY ETC.)
(c) How did you f i r s t hear about your present job was i t through
an employment exchange? .................................... ..
RUNNING
a Pr iv a te employment agency? ...........................
PROMPT
an a d v e r tise “ent7 .....................................................
BUT CODE a r e la t iv e or friend ? ............................................
QNE
d ir e c t a p p lic a tio n to an employer? ............
ONLY
or *n 8°me o t^er way? (SPECIFY) ....................

117

1

2

3
A
5

6

( c)

GO TO
Q. 12

British General Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)

TO THOSE WORKING LAST WEEK (CODED 1 AT Q. l )
HAND INFORMANT CARD A.
12. Which of the statem en ts on th is
Very s a t is f ie d ....................
card comes n e a r e st, on the w hole,
F a irly s a t is f ie d ............ ..
to what you think about your
p resen t (main) job?
N either s a t is f ie d nor
d is s a t is f ie d ......................
Rather d is s a t is f ie d . . . .
Very d is s a t is f ie d ............

C.ODK

1

ASK Q. 13

2
3

4
5

|ASK (a)
| ASK (b)

(a) Is th ere any reason why you

are not com p letely s a t is f ie d
w ith your job?

(b) Why are you d is s a tis f ie d ?

13. Are you s e r io u sly th in k in g of changing
or lea v in g your job?

Yes .
No ..

1
2

ASK (a)
ASK Q .14

IF YES
(a) (May I check) why is th is?
For reasons alread y given at 12(a) or (b)
For other reasons ...............................•.....................
(SPECIFY BELOW)

14. How long does it usually take
you to get from home to work?




Hr s ...........................M ins.
Work at home ....................
Ho usual p lace o f work

118

Y
X

X

Q

[

NOW GO TO
TRAVEL
PAGE 8

British General Household Survey Questionnaire (Excerpt)
CODE

TO THOSE LOOKING FOR WORK LAST WEEK (CODED 4 AT Q .l)
15. When looking for work la s t week
INDIVIDUAL
PROMPT f
CODE ALL
THAT
APPLY

were you r e g iste r e d w ith an employment exchange?’ ..........
were you re g iste r e d w ith a p riv a te employment agency?
did you a d v ertise or rep ly to a d v ertisem en ts? '.................
did you make a d ir e c t approach to a p ro sp ective
employer? .............
were you aw aiting the r e su lts of a p p lic a tio n s? ...............
or did you do som ething e ls e to fin d work? (SPECIFY)..

1
3

ASK Q .16

4
5

l ASK Q .l7

2

6

TO THOSE REGISTERED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE (CODED 1 AT Q.15)
OR WAITING TO START A NEW JOB (CODED 3 AT Q .l)
16.

Did you draw, or will you draw, any
unemployment benefit for last week?

ye s
n

0

....
.....

IF YES
*
(a) Did th is in clu d e, or were you a lso
p aid , any supplem entary allow ance?
ALTERNATIVE WORDING WHERE APPLICABLE ► Yes
No
W ill th is in clu d e or w ill you a lso be
paid any supplem entary allow ance?

1
2

t
2

ASK (a)
ASK Q . l 7

ASK Q. 17

TO THOSE WAITING TO START A NEW JOB, LOOKING FOR WORK, OR WOULD HAVE
LOOKED FOR WORK BUT FOR TEMPORARY SICKNESS (CODED 3-5 AT Q .l)
17. When did you la s t work?
Less than a week ago ................................
One week but le s s than l month . . . .
One month but le s s than 3 months ..
Three months but le s s than 6 months
S ix months but le s s than 1 year . . .
One year or more ago ................................
NEVER WORKED BEFORE ..........

0

18. Have you reta in ed any pension r ig h ts
from a previous job which you are
e ith e r drawing now or w ill J>e ab le
to draw in the future?

1
2

Yes . . . . . . . . .
No ................. ..

1

2

3
4
5

ASK Q. 18

6

GO TO
TRAVEL
PAGE 8

19. Why did you stop work?




NOW GO TO
TRAVEL
PAGE 8

119

ployed, so that these surveys indicate overall proportions
for registration and non-registration.
Results of the 1971 GHS indicate that between onefifth and one-quarter of all those who described themselves
as looking for work were not registered with the Department
of Employment. Roughly, 7.5 percent of men looking for
work were unregistered; for women, 53.7 percent were un­
registered.
The results of the 1971 GHS indicate an average un­
employment rate for Great Britain of 3.9 percent of the
civilian labor force. The rate for men was 3.9 percent and
for women, 3.8 percent. The Department of Employment
figures on registered unemployment for 1971 yield an over­
all figure of 3.1 percent-4.1 percent for men and 1.3 per­
cent for women. (These rates from the registered unem­
ployed series, normally published as a percent of the wage
and salary labor force, are based on the wage and salary
plus self-employed labor force in order to make meaning­
ful comparisons with the GHS.)
The above figures indicate that the registered unem­
ployed figures slightly overstated male unemployment
rates in 1971, but that female rates were substantially
understated. The overstatement of male unemployment is
surprising in view of the results of the 1961 and 1966
censuses. Also, the GHS itself indicates that 7.5 percent
of unemployed men seeking work were unregistered. There
are two reasons for the higher unemployment of men in the
registered series. First, male registrants who did some work
in the reference week of the GHS would be counted as em­
ployed rather than unemployed in the GHS. The 1966
sample census results indicate that about 4 percent of
registered unemployed men did some work in the census
week. Second, “occupational pensioners,” who are not
in fact seeking work, are required to stay on the register
until age 65 in order to maintain eligibility for a pension
without making national insurance contributions.24 Such
persons would probably declare themselves as retired in
the GHS. A special survey conducted in October 1973
found that 12 percent of the persons registered as unem­
ployed that month regarded themselves as not really being
in the labor market. Apart from occupational pensioners,
those with little interest in working were largely women
and older, disadvantaged workers who had become re­
signed to their loi-i.e., “discouraged workers.”
Unfortunately, data reported in the GHS are not in­
flated to a universe level, and published information on
sampling characteristics is not complete enough to allow
calculation of sampling ratios to apply to the actual figures
reported. Therefore, BUS has made an estimate of aggregate
unemployment for 1971 by first determining the level of
employment compatible with GHS concepts and then deriv­
24Such persons were included in the registered unemployed sta­
tistics as a result of parliamentary decisions. In accordance with the
Social Security Act of 1973, the rules were changed in April 1975
so that occupational pensioners are no longer required to register
as unemployed.



120

ing unemployment by applying the GHS unemployment
rate of 3.9 percent (table B-16). Civilian employment com­
patible with GHS concepts was taken to be the 4-quarter
employment average from the establishment census plus an
estimate of self-employed persons and domestics who are
not covered by the establishment census, less an estimate of
multiple jobholders. (See section on labor force adjustments
for further explanation.) This employment figure includes
wage and salary workers and self-employed persons, but
excludes unpaid family workers. Its coverage is, therefore,
the same as the GHS. The 1971 civilian employment figure,
thus determined, is 23,106,000. This figure and the GHS
unemployment rate are compatible with a total unemploy­
ment level of 938,000.25
Figures for 15- to 19-year-olds were not separately
reported in the GHS. Instead, data for 15- to 17-year-olds
and 18- to 24-year-olds were shown. In order to determine
an adjustment factor for teenagers, an estimate was made,
based on 1971 census proportions, of the number of 18and 19-year-olds in the 18-24 age group.
Besides adding persons on temporary layoff (done in
table B-18), only one adjustment must be made in GHS un­
employment data for comparability with U.S. concepts.
Persons enumerated as seeking work who have not taken
any recent actions to do so should be excluded. The 1971
GHS indicates that 22.3 percent of the number of persons
seeking work but not registered as such had not actually
taken steps to find work in the reference week. Allowing
for the possibility that some may have taken active steps
in the previous 4 weeks, this percentage was scaled down
to 15 percent for adjustment purposes. Thus, 15 percent
of the unregistered unemployed seeking work is subtracted
from aggregate unemployment under GHS definitions. This
amounts to 5,000 men and 18,000 women.
GHS unemployment, adjusted as described above,
was then related back to the registered unemployed series
to obtain adjustment factors (table B-16).
The following tabulation shows the 1971 adjustment
factors in relation to those derived from the 1961 and 1966
censuses:
1961

Adult m e n ..........................................
Adult women ......................
Teenage b o y s .....................................
Teenage g i r l s .....................................

22
93
123
152

1966

1971

38
182

- 13
227
13
89

66
101

The results of the 1971 population census can be compared with
the above estimate. The census reported 1,298.800 persons “out of
employment” during the entire week of the census. April and May
were relatively low unemployment months compared with the
annual average for 1971-representing about 95 percent of the an
nual average. (The average of the April and May counts is taken to
approximate the timing of the 1971 census which enumerated per­
sons according to their status as of April 25. Registered unemployed
counts were taken on April 5 and May 10). Dividing the census “out
of employment” by 95 percent yields 1,367,000. Annual unemploy­
ment from the GHS, as estimated above, is 69 percent of this figure.
This confirms the results of the analysis of the 1961 and 1966
censuses, in that the “out of employment” category significantly
overstates unemployment by U.S. concepts.
25

Shifts in the propensity to register between 1961 and
1966 have already been discussed. Between 1966 and 1971,
the adult female propensity to register continued its decline.
This finding is supported by the fact that, as reported un­
employment rates rose from 1.4 to 3.4 percent and female
unemployment rates from 0.8 to 1.4 percent, those for
married women rose only slightly from 0.6 to 0.7 percent,
based on the registered unemployed series. Rather than
being a true reflection of labor market conditions, this
small increase in registered unemployment for married
women probably resulted from a further decline in the
propensity to register.26
While the adult female propensity to register de­
clined between 1966 and 1971, the adult male propensity
to register rose sharply— the point where there was “over­
to
registration’' of males age 20 and over. Thus the tendency
of unemployed men not to register as unemployed was out­
weighed by the tendency of registered unemployed males
to do some work during the week of registration and for
pensioners, not actually seeking work, to register as un­
employed.
The rise in the propensity of adult males to register is
undoubtedly related to the deterioration of economic con­
ditions between 1966 and 1971. Reported unemployment
rates more than doubled between these 2 years, rising from
1.4 to 3 A percent. There are reasons for supposing that,
in periods of exceptionally high unemployment, the pro­
pensity to register increases. The more serious the problem,
the more people are aware of the problem and of their
rights to unemployment compensation. Furthermore, per­
sons who would normally search for jobs on their own dur­
ing times when jobs are easy to find would increasingly turn
to the Employment Service for help in obtainin? employ­
ment.
A further incentive to register was the introduction of
earnings-related unemployment benefits in October 1966.
Previously, unemployment compensation consisted of a flat
benefit unrelated to prior earnings. Eamings-related benefits
amount to one-third of a person’s former earnings between
certain specified amounts. Also, increases in flat-rate bene­
fits were large, amounting to a 20-percent increase in 1971
alone.
The propensity to register on the part of teenagers
continued to increase between 1966 and 1971. There was a
sharp increase for teenage boys and a slight increase for
teenage girls. Continued development and improvement of
the Youth Employment Service played a role in this trend.
Combining the census and survey analyses. Coefficients of
adjustment were derived from the 1961 and 1966 censuses
and the General Household Surveys to be applied to the
regularly published British statistics on the registered un­
employed. Adjustment factors for 1962 through 1965 were
interpolated from the 1961 and 1966 results; factors for2
2 6 For some explanations of this trend, see Guy Standing, “Hidden
Society, October 14, 1971, pp. 716-19,

W oiK lessffV ew




121

1959 and 1960 were assumed to be the same as for 1961.
For 1967-70, factors were interpolated from the 1966 and
1971 results; factors for 1972 through 1974 were derived
from the surveys conducted in those years. Aggregate un­
employment levels were derived from these surveys by the
same method used for the 1971 survey— determination
i.e.,
of a universe-level employment and derivation of unem­
ployment by applying the GHS unemployment rate for that
year. Since linking with earlier years was not required, it
was not necessary to calculate adjustment factors for differ­
ent age and sex categories after 1971. The aggregate unem­
ployment levels for 1972 through 1974 were adjusted to
exclude persons not actively seeking work. From 1972 on­
ward, the proportion of persons who had not actively
sought work was not published. Unpublished tabulations
obtained from The Office of Population Censuses and Sur­
veys indicate that a smaller proportion of persons were not
actively seeking work in 1972 through 1974, compared
with 1971. Therefore, 10 percent of the “not registered,
other” category was subtracted (compared with 15 percent
in 1971).
Persons on temporary layoff are not included in
either the census or the GHS unemployed. Since they
should be included for comparability with U.S. concepts,
the number of persons on temporary layoff has been esti­
mated from figures published on the number of workers in
manufacturing who were laid off the entire week. These
figures wete inflated to include nonmanufacturing by using
the ratio of manufacturing workers to all workers temporar­
ily laid off and receiving benefits (normally a ratio of 85 to
90 percent).
Table B-17 shows the annual adjustment factors for
1959-71, the registered unemployed, and the estimate of
unregistered unemployed derived by applying the adjust­
ment factors. The unregistered unemployed are added to
the registered unemployed and persons on temporary layoff
in table B-18 to obtain total British unemployment adjusted
to U.S. concepts. For example, registered unemployment
of 752,000 in 1971 is adjusted upward to 930,000 for
comparability with U.S. concepts.
A small adjustment for a few years had to be made
in the data for adult students to regularize the date of the
unemployment count. The counts of adult student registra­
tions were not always taken at the same time in the
month—e.g., sometimes they were taken in early January
and sometimes in late January. This had a large effect on
the data since school vacations were over by late January.
The adjustments, although significant in some months, were
very small on an annual basis.
For 1975 and 1976, in lieu of survey results, the pro­
portion of unregistered to registered unemployed in 1972
was applied (19 percent). This was done because 1972, like
1975 and 1976, was a year of relatively high unemployment.
As results from General Household Surveys for 1975 and
later years are analyzed, the estimates of adjusted unem­
ployment since 1974 will probably require some revision.

Table B-17. Great Britain: Calculation of the unregistered unemployed, 1959-71
Item

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Percent
Adjustment factors: 1
Teenagers:
M a l e ................................
F em ale.............................
Adults:
M a l e ................................
F em ale.............................

123
152 :

123
152

123
152

111

100

65

131

88
121

77

142

110

101

55
99

44
96

34
94

23
91

13
89

28
129

32
146

35
164

38
182

28
191

18
200

7
209

-3
218

-1 3
227

544
67
46

582
76
53
23
506
442
64

758
114
78
36
644
562
83

160
33

157
42

22

22

22

25

93

93

93

111

Thousands
Registered unemployed 2 . .
Teenagers.............................
M a l e ................................
F em ale.............................
Adults ...................... ...
M a l e ................................
F em ale.............................

445
39
24
15
406
299
107

Unregistered unemployed 3 .
Teenagers.............................
M a l e ................................
Fem ale.............................
Adults ................................
M a l e ................................
F em ale.............................

219
53
30
23
166
66
100

346
28
17

312
25
14

432
55
33

11

11

22

318
231
87

287
212

377
289

75

88

170
38

151
34
17
17
117
47
70

238

21

17
132
51
81

68

37
31
170
72
98

521
72
43
29
449
351
98

372
48
29
19
324
251
74

317
43
26
17
274
215
59

331
42
26
16
289
234
55

521
67
44
23
454
377
77

549
60
41
19
489
420
70

305
81
43
38
224
98
126

237
49
26
23
188
80
108

211

22 2

39

33
17
16
189
89

300
47
24
23
253
106
147

252
36
18
18
216
76
140

19
172
75
97

100

192
36
16
20

12
21

156
29
127

127
-1 3
140

10

32
115
-7 3
188

2

Annual average data by sex divided into age groups according
to midyear proportions of the registered wholly unemployed.
Computed by applying adjustment factors to registered unem­
ployed data.

*1961 factors derived from population census; 1966 factors
from "sample census;" 1971 factors from General Household
Survey. 1959 and 1960 factors assumed same as 1961; 1962-65
and 1967-70 factors interpolated.

Labor force

British civilian labor force estimates are obtained by
adding civilian wage and salary workers (employed and un­
employed) and estimates of the self-employed and employ­
ers. Unpaid family workers, a small category, are excluded.
Estimates of the self-employed and employers are interpo­
lated by British statistical authorities from results of popu­
lation censuses. The number of unemployed wage and salary
workers is obtained from the registered unemployed figures
reported by the Department of Employment. The number
of employed wage and salary workers was based solely
upon quarterly counts of National Insurance cards until
June 1971 when an annual employment census was insti­
tuted. Quarterly estimates of employed wage and salary
workers are now derived from the annual census and
quarterly sample surveys of establishments. To provide a
link between the old and new systems, both the card count
and a census were taken in June 1971 and the card count
system was continued through 1972. Estimates on the
census basis were made for earlier years by the British sta­
tistical authorities.
British statistics on the civilian working population
(labor force) differ from U.S. concepts in three respects:
(1) The establishment census overcounts wage and
salary employment under U.S. concepts. Because it is an
establishment inquiry, a person who had two regular jobs
with different employers in the census or survey week
would be counted twice. Thus, it is a measure of the



20

21

477
416
61

122

number of jobs rather than the number of workers in Great
Britain. The U.S. labor force survey measures the number
of workers. In another respect, the establishment census
undercounts employment: Persons in private domestic
service are excluded. There were 90,000 such persons in the
1971 National Insurance card count.
(2) Unpaid family workers are also excluded from the
establishment census, which covers only wage and salary
workers. Such persons are included in the U.S. labor force
if they worked 15 or more hours during the survey week.
(3) The unregistered unemployed are not included in
the British labor force statistics. Unemployed persons do
not appear in the British count of the working population
unless they have registered as such. Persons on temporary
layoff are included in the British statistics on employment.
Method of adjustment. The British statistics on the labor
force were adjusted to U.S. concepts based on information
from the population census and the General Household
Surveys.
1.
Adjustment for overcount o f employment. Accord­
ing to the results of the 1971 GHS, 3.3 percent of the male
workers and 2.8 percent of the female workers were multiple
jobholders. About 57 percent of the multiple jobholders
held more than one wage or salary job (a male-female break­
down was not available on this point). It was assumed that
57 percent of the 3.3 percent of male workers were mul­
tiple jobholders in the establishment census. Thus, 1.9 per­
cent of all men reported as working in the establishment

census were multiple jobholders. Similarly 1.6 percent
of the women held more than one wage or salary job. These
percentages were applied to the reported number of male
and female employees in the establishment census to arrive
at an estimate of the overcount due to multiple jobholding.
For 1971, using this method, there were 385,000 multiple
jobholders in the establishment census figures.2 7 Domestics,
who were not covered in the establishment census, should
be added. They numbered about 90,000 in 1971. Thus a
net overcount of 295,000 (385,000 - 90,000) was esti­
mated for 1971.
In 1972, using the same method discussed above, it
was estimated that 2.2 percent of the men and 1.6 percent
of the women in the establishment census were multiple
jobholders. Data on multiple jobholding was not available
from the 1973 and 1974 surveys. Therefore, for years
after 3972, the 1972 relationships have been used. The
number of domestics was assumed to be 0.4 percent of
civilian employment each year, based on the 1971 census.
The proportion of multiple jobholders in the 1966
sample census was somewhat less than in 1971-2.5 percent
versus 3.1 percent for both sexes. The adjustment for mul­
tiple jobholders was scaled down to 1.5 percent for men
and 1.4 percent for women in 1966 and prorated through
1971.
2. Unpaid family workers. There are very few unpaid
family workers in Great Britain because British tax laws are
such that the majority of family workers are paid. Data on
the number of family workers are available from the popu­
lation censuses, but there is no indication as to how many
are unpaid and how many work fewer than 15 hours dur­
ing the week. It was decided that the number of unpaid
family workers is probably too small to warrant an adjust­
ment to include them. This assumption can be tested when
results of the 1976 General Household Survey become
available, since this survey will enumerate wives who work
in their husband’s business without pay.
3. The number of unregistered unemployed, as de­
termined above, was added to the reported labor force.
Unemployment rate

The published British unemployment rate is
computed by dividing the number of registered
unemployed (including school leavers but excluding adult
students) by the total wage and salary labor force (em­
ployed and unemployed). The unemployment rate ad­
justed to U.S. concepts is computed by dividing the sum of
the registered (including adult students) and estimated2

27This figure may be somewhat overestimated because in the
GHS a person may be coded as having more than one job when the
different jobs are all with the same employer; such a person could
be counted only once in the Census oi Employment. However,
there is no information on the amount by which the 385,000
should be reduced.
123



unregistered unemployed and persons on temporary layoff
by the civilian labor force adjusted for overcount and reg­
istered unemployed, (See table B-18.)
Quarterly and monthly estimates

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates seasonally
adjusted unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. definitions
for Great Britain. The method used in making these adjust­
ments is as follows:
Unemployment. To arrive at the number of unemployed,
adjusted to U.S. concepts. BI.S adds together the wholly
unemployed (which excludes school leavers and adult stu­
dents), school leavers, persons temporarily laid off, the
unregistered unemployed, and adult students.
The number of wholly unemployed excluding school
leavers and adult students is the seasonally adjusted series
published by the Department of Employment. Since 1972,
the series has been adjusted using the additive version of
the X-ll Variant of the U.S, Bureau of the Census Method
II seasonal adjustment program. Prior to 1972, a multipli­
cative seasonal adjustment program devised by the Central
Statistical Office was used. School leavers and the tempor­
arily laid off are seasonally adjusted by BLS using the mul­
tiplicative option of the X -ll. The number of unregistered
unemployed is calculated by multiplying the sum of the
wholly unemployed and school leavers, both of which are
seasonally adjusted, by annual factors, derived from the
General Household Survey.
The number of adult students added to the unem­
ployed for adjustment to U.S. concepts is a constant based
on the annual average number of adult students registered
as unemployed. As noted above, an increasing number of
adult students in the period 1970-76 registered as unem­
ployed during their holidays in order to collect supplemen­
tary benefits. The registration of these persons caused dis­
tortions in BLS’s seasonal adjustment of this series. There­
fore, a constant number of adult students is added to the
quarterly and monthly estimates of the unemployed. In
1977, fewer adult students registered during the short
school holidays, because regulations were changed so that
they were no longer entitled to benefits.
Labor force. Monthly estimates of the labor force cannot
be made because employment statistics are published only
quarterly. Quarterly estimates of the labor force adjuster
to U.S. definitions are derived by adding reported employ
ment (employees in employment plus the self-employed),
seasonally adjusted by the Department of Employment, to
the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed adjusted
to U.S. concepts. Estimates of the number of persons
temporarily laid off the entire week and multiple job­
holders are subtracted, The figure used for multiple job­
holders is a constant derived from the latest available Gen­
eral Household Survey.

Table B-18. Great B ritain: A djustm ent o f labor force data to U.S. concepts, 1959-76
( N u m b e r s in t h o u s a n d s )

Item

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

Reported civilian e m p lo y m e n t................................... ... ................
Plus: Registered u n e m p lo y e d ......................................................
Reported civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................
Less: Net overcount.........................................................................
Plus: Adult students 1 ................................... ..................................
Plus: Unregistered unemployed 2
............................................
Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................
Rounded ................................................................... .........................

22,785
444
23,229
219
219
23,229
23,230

23,177
346
23,523
225
170
23,468
23,470

23,487
312
23,799
230
151
23,720
23,720

23,631
432
24,063
232
238
24,069
24,070

23,698
521
24,219
233
~
305
24,291
24,290

24,036
372
24,408
228
237
24,417
24,420

Registered unemployed ................................................ .....................
Plus: Adult students 1 ................................... ..................................
Plus: Temporarily laid off ^ ................................... ...
Plus: Unregistered unemployed 2 .............................
Adjusted unemployed .........................................................................
R o u n d e d ...................................... .......................... ...

444
7
219
670
670

346

312
-

6

170
517
520

151
469
470

521
7
305
833
830

372
-

1

432
9
238
679
680

Unemployment rate (percent):
As published 4
.................................................. ............................
Adjusted to U.S. c o n c e p ts ...................................................... ... .

2.0

1.5

1.4

1.9

2.9

2.2

2.0

2.8

2.3
3.4

1971

1968

1969

1970

Reported civilian employment . ......................................................
Plus: Registered unemployed . ................ ... .............................
Reported civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................
Less: Net overcount ........................................... ' ............................
Plus: Adult students 1 ...................... ............................................
Plus: Unregistered unemployed 2
............................................
Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................
R o u n d e d ...................... .....................................................................

23,916
546
24,462
261
3
252
24,456
24,460

23,924
540
24,464
260
4
192
24,400
24,400

23,811
577
24,388
279
5
160
24,274
24,270

Registered u n e m p lo y e d ..................................................... ...
Plus: Adult students 1 .............................................
Plus: Temporarily laid off 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plus: Unregistered unemployed 2 ................ ... ..........................
Adjusted unemployed ................................ ..................................... ...
Rounded
. . . . . . ................ . ................... . . . . . . . . .

546
3
252
803
800

540
4
5
192
741
740

577
5
5
160
747
750

157
926
930

Unempk yment rate (percent):
As published 4 ..................................................................................
Adjusted to U.S. c o n c e p ts ............................................................

2.4
3.3

2.4
3.0

2.5
3.1

3.4
3.9

1 A d u lt students

2

registered as u n e m p lo y e d adju sted s lig h tly to

reg ularize d ate o f c o u n t.

7

For 1959 71 see table B-17 for method of estimation. For 1972
through 1974, unem ploym ent from household surveys inflated to
universe levels and adjusted to U.S. concepts. Surveys for 1975 on­
wards have not been published; unregistered unemployed figures for
1 9 7 5 and 1976 are estimated as described in text.

Unemployment rate. Quarterly unemployment rates are
estimated by dividing the 3-month seasonally adjusted av­
erage of unemployment (adjusted to U.S. definitions) by
the seasonally adjusted (adjusted to U.S. concepts) labor
force. Since labor force data are only available quarterly,
the f or • ee is held constant for each of the 3 months
which make up that quarter. Additionally, the latest
available labor force figure is used until the next quarterly
figure is published. At that time, the unemployment rates
me recalculated. The labor force figures generally lag by
T months.




124

1972

1965

1966

1967

24,260 24,332 24,021
317
331
519
24,577 24,663 24,540
241
232
232
2
300
2 11
222
24,556 24,653 24,601
24,560 24,650 24,600
317
5

331
4

2 11

222

533
530

557
560

7
300
828
830

1.6

1.4

2.5

2.2

1.4
2.3

3.4

1
237
610
610

1973

1974

1975

519

2

2.2
1976

23,402 23,570 24,088 24,169 24,004 23,830
936
1,305
752
835
588
585
24,154 24,405 24,676 24,754 24,940 25,135
295
337
336
337
5 333 * 5 330
44
11
6
9
9
35
85
176
157
160
5 251
5 180
24,022 24,237 24,525 24,513 524,822 s25,100
24,020 24,240 24,530 24,510 5 24,820 5 25,100
752

6
11

588
9

585

10

6

160
1,014

1,010

176
779
780

9
85
690
690

3.7
4.2

3.2

835
9

2.6

11

2.6
2.8

936
1,305
44
35
16
6
5 180
5 251
5 1,166 5 1,606
5 1,1 70 5 1,610
4.1
s 4.7

5.6

5 6.4

2 M a n u fa c tu rin g w o rkers laid off th e e n tire w e e k in fla te d to in­
clude nonmanufacturing based on data on registrations for tempor­
ary layoff benefits.
4 Registered unemployed as a percent of the civilian wage and
salary labor force.

5 Preliminary estimate.

Italy

Prior to 1963, the International Labour Office (ILO)
published the number of registered unemployed persons as
representative Italian unemployment figures. The unemploy­
ment rate was computed by dividing the number of regis­
tered unemployed by the economically active population
(excluding persons seeking first employment) reported in
the 1951 population census. Beginning in 1963, however,
the ILO began publishing the results of a quarterly sample
survey as the more representative unemployment figures.

Italian Survey Questionnaire Used Prior to 1977
La settimana di riferimento e quella che comprende il giorno di riferimento
(Nelia risposta ai quesiti delle varie colonne attenersi, ove richiesto, alle sigle o cifre convenzionali rip ortate in cak e aiia corrisponcente colonna)
NOTIZ'IE PER TUTTE LE PERSONE DELLA FAMIGLIA

DA COMPILARE SOLAMENTE PER LE PERSGNE IN ETA D! 14 A N N I O PIU
AD D E1TI
A L LA ACRIC O l TURA
E ALLE
COSTRUz io n :
occupa'col.14=1 o 4)
Z’cne

C j compilare: SEMPRE per g!i O C ‘-d R O ; pc' le persona '
(P O - C - P ecc.) SOLO se h a n n o svc!lo a t h v it i la v o ra tiv t
A ttivsti economica prevaiente dell’u n iti locale c
cit 3ta la professione, pos’zione nelia professions

O re di lavoro effettuate
nelia settimana di riferimento

I

arte o mestiere del iavoratore
Ramo di an iviU j
economtta pre- j
valente dell'uni- 1
ta locale

Se le ore sono
inferior! a 33
indicare:

profes­
sione

•i

PROFESSIONE
(viticultore, meccaoico, e'ettnosta
riparatore, parroco, capitano, infermiere diplomaro, usciere, bidel!o, fattorino, ecc.)

S|

Riservato
ISTAT

R3 e PO
col 10
Mesi
N.
z

5 e

10

RELAZiONE COL CAPO
FAMIGLIA:
Capo famiglia . .
Cor.ii.ge . . . .
. . . .
A ltri parent!. . .

1
2
3
4

Domestici e.simil: .
A lt r i...........................i

5

Per I PRESENTI
indicare sempre:
Col. 5 (motivo) 0
Col. 6 (durata) 00
CoTTT (lorahta) 00
Per gii ASSENTI
dal Comune per
lu ita la aettim ana d i rife r im e n to indicate:
Col. 5 (motivo):

d
i

Emigrati all’esteCol. 3
SESSO:
Maschi .

,

Femmine

Indicare gli mnni ca m la «Ta-

piuti secondo
bella deH'et4»,

Domidliati
fatto in altro
Comune

mente assenti
Equipaggi in navigazione . .
Col, 6 (durata):
La durata dell’assenza in meai
Col. 7 (locality):
Lo stato esiero e
la provir.cia dove
si trova I’assente
(cfr. codice sul
retro).

Col. 17

C oL_8

Col. 10

Col. 12

Coi. 14 - r a m o d i a t t i v i t A e c o n o m i c a

STATO
CIVILE:
Celibe
nubile . 1
Coniugato 2

C O N D IZ IO N E :

CAUSA a t t i v i t A
R IDOTTA

Profevsionale :

Malattia o maternity
Confhtto ci lavoro . . .
Ferie o fes tiv ity..........
Gattivo tempo . . . .
Inizio o cessaz. dell'attivita nelia settimana
Contralto di lavoro o
rapporto d ’ impiego

Agricoitura, foreste, caccia e pesca , . . . .
Industrie estrattive
»
m a n ifa ttu rie re........................... ..... . .
»
costruzioni . . . . . . . . . .
Produzione e disju ibuzione di energia elettrica e c
d is trib u tio n s a c q u a ......................................................
C o m m c c io ........................................... ..... . . .
Trasporti e co m u n ic azio n i.....................................
Credito e assicurazione . . . . . . . . .
Servizi e attivita sociali varie
Pubbtica Amministrazione . . . . . . . .

Vedovo . 3
Separato , 4

Occupato . . . OC -1
Ricerca nuova
occupazione R O -2
Mon professionale:

Col. 9
ISTRUZ IO N E :
Analfabeta 1
Nessun titolc
. 2
Lie.
elementare . 3
Lie. scuola _
_
media in- *
feriore
. 4
Diploma
scuola me­
dia superiore . . S

In cerca di 1*
occupazione . PO -3
Servizio leva SL-4

1
2
3
4
5
6

Sottoccupazione:
- Causa stagionale . . . 7
- A ltra cau sa............... 8
Non convenienza o interesse a maggior la­
Studente . , .
S-6
voro .................... ’. . . 9
Inabi'e . . . .
IN - 7
A itre cause (spectficaPensionato . .
P-4J
re nelle annotazioni) 0
Altra condizione(beneCol. 13
stanti. anziani, deteCASSA SNTEGRAZIOnuti, vagaN & G U A D AG NI

Casalinga . . .

m .l i) ..........

Laurea . . 6

AG-1
ES-2
M A -3
C O -4
EL-S
CM4
TR -7

DURA­
TA RI­
CERCA
OCCUPAZ.

CR-8

IS e 19
,nno

riferi'

dell'attuale
nievazione

SE-9
PA-0

Col. 15 - PO SIZIONE NELLA PROFESSIONE
Riservato
ISTAT

C-5

A -9

Ne usufruisce.......... .. .
Non ne usufruisce . . .
(cfr. NORME sul retro)

I
0

aMa ri­

imprenditore . . . . .
L.ibero professicnista . .
Lavoratore in proprio . ,

cerca
della
occupa­

............................................................
Dirigente
Impiegato ...........................................................
Qperaio, subalterno e assimilate; categoric ii
medie deli'industrha . . . . . . . .

zione

tuate unicamente
nelI' agricoitura

Col. 16 - PROFESSIONE
Indicare, vsando term'ni specificf, la professione, art
stiers esercitata; per i d>socc.upati, la professione, ar
suere esercitata neU'u.tima occupazione posseduta.

A N N O T A Z I O N I
Data di consegna ali'Ufficio del Comune..,..................... 196
DELL'INTERVISTATORE (da compilare SEMPRE se col. 12 - 0)

DELL'UFFICIALE d i a n a g r a f e
Per i component! che alia coi. 6 figurano assenti
da oltre 24 mesi, mdicare se sono ancora iscritti
in anagrafe, barrando il rettangoio che fa a! caso
Componente
(n. d'ordine col. 1)

I

j i5cnrto

Non iscritto

Ir n

!
—

l

. I ......j F 5
.

I

1

1 n
1
I

i

L’lMTERVISTATORE

(Cognome e norr.e leggibi’i)

Visto: per !a revisione
IL CAPO DELL’UFFICIO
ADDETTO ALLA R1LEVA2IONE

i

A T T E N Z lO N E s L e f a m ig lie d e v o n o e s s e r e i n t e r v is ia t e , a i lo r o d o m lc lU o , n on a p p e n a d o c o r s a la
s e ttim a n a d i r if e r im e n t o m l m o d e lll d e v o n o e s s e r e r e s t l t u i t l a l l 9IS T A T e n tr o e n o n
o lt r o l l 1 2 * g io rn o s u o o e s s N o a q u e lla d i r if e r im e n t o *




125




Italian Survey Questionnaire Used from 1977 Onward

La settimana di riferimento e quelfa che comprende il giofno di riferimento
DA COMPILARE SOLAMEN'E PER LE PERSONE IN ETA' DI 14 ANNI O PiU'

Per gl i

scoNu-

Qualunque
sia ia condi-

DA COMPILARE: Sempra per gli OCCUPATI e le PERSONE IN CERCA DI NUOVA
OCCUPAZIONE; per tu tti gli a ltri solo sa hanno effettuato
almeno 1 ora di lavoro nella settimana d i rife rim e n to .

RICERCA

D ELL'O C C U PAZIO N E

rata, ha effettuato ore
di layoro neid i riterim ento?
State
civ ile

3

Condi

Istro-

zione

zione

Se SI, in d i­
care ii numero d i ore
lavorate in
tutts le
tiv ita da cui
le persona o
ia fam iglia
trae un guadagno

1
0

9

11

PROFESSIONE

Denominaziane

12

Posizione
nella
orofesCodice sione

13

Branca di
a ttiv ity
econo­
mica
preva­
lent©
della
unity
locale

N jm e rc ore effettivanr-ente lavorate nella
settimana di
rlfe rimento nella to la at­
tiv ity principale

Numero
ore

Se
r.ono
in fe rio r!
a 40
indicare
ia causa

15

16

14

l

Solo per chi 1a i codici 1
h

ATTIVITA’ LAVORATiVA PRINCiPALE (O UNICA)

Luogo
dove
svolge
I'a ttiv it i

O ltre
I'a ttiv ity
p rin c i­
Cerca
pale
svolge
attivaa ltri
iaveri
mente
anche
in un
un lavoro?
diverso
periodo
delI'anno?

Come
svolge
ia sua
a tti­
vity

rativa

17

IS

19

20

v

Da quanti
mesi fe
alia ric e r­
ca d i un
iavoro?

cn m n iiilo

(o p e r
quanto
tempo e
stato alia
ricerca di
un lavoro?)

alia colonna 20

re rra re iax/nrn?

(barrare i codici :orrispondenti a tu tte le aziotn
comp lute)

21

22

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Quando
ha com­
p iuta
I'u itim a
azione
concreta
per cer
lavoro?

23

denti in ety Contrida 10 a 15 buisce
ro
in qua!che mo­ d 'e r
p iu ti.
do
d i­
Solo per
col p ro ­
chi ha i
p rio la­
ne
codici 5 o
voro al
6 alia
O ltre a studei |
redd i to
colonna
dlare sta im20
fam i ha­ com­
parando prare?
ticamente un
(Rispon- po­
Perch6 non m estiere in
dere
cerca atti orficin a , botvamente
SI o N O )
un lavoro? tega, negort
zio, ufficio?

24

25

26

27

6

7

8

1

8

2

Col. S - 5?AT©
CIVILE
Cehbe,
nu­
b ile
......
Coniugato .
Vedovo
...
Separate, d ivondato, gi&
coniugato
.

1
2
3
4

Cel 9 - ISTRUZIONE
Ana if abets . I
Nesiun tito .............. 2
lo
Licenza elementare . . . 3
Lieenza scunmedia in ­
ferior©
... 4
Diploma
seucla
re ­
did super lo­
re
............ 5
Laurec ..
6

Cel.
10
ZIONE

-

Occupato

CONDI-

............

1

Ricerca nuova oceupazicoe
....... 2
In cerca d i I* OCrupazione
. ... 3
Servizio d i

leva

4

CasaKnga

............ 5

Studente

.............. 6

Inabile ai lavoro . 7
Persona rb ira ta
da! lavoro .......... S
A itre
conaiziona
{ Penesiante.
anziano,
detenuto,
vagabond©
e
sim d i)
.......................9

!

Co!
1? LAVORO

ORE

D!

Indicare is numero
di ore su due d ir e
aniepenendo Un° Ie '
ro se occoire.

12

13

1

14

Col 12
PROFESSION
Indicare, usando term ini specifiei, la professione esercitat3, per
!e persone in cerca di nuova occupazione S professione arte o
a
mestiere esercitati r>el I'u ltim a occupazione posseduts. St- ia pro­
fessione h fra queiie sottoelencate, indicare il codice che fa a!
caso:
Insegnante, professors, bidello, persona!e scolastico . . . .
1
M ilita re di carriers fmo ad appuntato
............................
2
M ilita re di carriers da vice brigadiere in su .....................
3
Ferroviere, tranviere, a ltri dipendenti dei pubblic* trasporti
4
Cantoniore stradale e assim ilati .......... ................................
5
Portalettere e a ltri dipendenti degli uffici delle PP.TT
6
Netturbino
.............................................................................. ■ 7
Membro di equipaggio mercantile in nevigazione ..............
8
Co!. 13 - POSIZIONE NELLA PROFESSIONE
Imprend itore
....................
1 Impiegato o interm ed o .
Operaio, subaltern© a asLibero professionista . . . . 2
s im ils ti ..........................
Lavoratore in proprio . . . 3
Apprer.dist3
......................
Coadiuvante .......................
4 Lavoratore a domici!i> per
conto di imprese
Dirigente .............................. 5
Col. 14 ■ BRANCA DI ATTIVITA' ECONOMICA
Agricoltura, foreste, caccia e pesos ................
Energia e acqua
Estrazione e trasformazione di minerals non energeti
e prodotti derivati. industria chimica ..........................
Industrie di trasformazicr.c dei m etalii e meccanica
precisione
............................................................................
Officine e botteghe di riparazione di beni d i consumo (auto
calzature, elettrodom estici, orologi, ecc.) ............
Aitre Industrie m an'fatturiere .........................................
Costruzioni e installazione di im pianti ......................
Commercio, siberghi e pubbiici esercizi .......... .. . . . .
Trasporti e comunirazioni .............................................
Credit© e assicurazione, servizi prestati alle imprese, no
leggio senza personale, iocazione ..............................
Pubbiica amministrazione, forze armate, assistenza e
videnza sociaie .................................................................
A ltri servizi, a ttiv iti sociali varie, istituzioni religiose
eriti stranieri e organizzazioni internazionali ..........

16

15

17

19

18

20

01

M alattia o m aternity
C o n flitto di lavoro .............. 02
Ferie, o fe stivity .................. 03
C attivo
tempo ...................... 04
Inizio o cessazione d e li’a ttivit& net la settimana .......... 05
Contralto di lavoro o rapporto d'im piego ...................... 06
Causa stagionale .................. 07
Ridotta
a ttivita dell'aziend? 08
Non ha trovato occasion! di
maggior lavoro ................
09
Non convenienza o interesse a maggior lavoro -----10
A ltra causa .............................. 00
Col. 17 - LUOGO
In

casa o nelie im mediate
vicinanze
............................
Fuori casa, ma neiio stesso
Comune
......................
In s itro Comune ..........
Luogo va ria b ile ( rapp resen
ta n ti, personale viaggian
te. ecc.) ............
Co!

1* - MOOO

In modo regoiare e continue
In modo occasional© e saltuario
...........................
Solo stagionale ......................

1
2
3

Col. 19 - ATTIVITA' SECONDARY
SI

NO

...............................

....

.........................................

1

2

( N .B .

5

7

8

4

2

3

4

5

6
6

7

8

5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6

2

3

4

6

7

8

7

2

3

4

6

7

8

21

Col. 20 - RICERCA DI
LAVORO

Col. IS - CAUSA RIDOTTA
ATTIViTA'

3

4

1
’

8

3

1

11

7

2

1

10

6

1

9

4

1

S

3

5

6

1

2

7

5
5
22

8
23

24

Co!. 22 - AZ3DNS CONCRETE D! Pi
CERCA

Si, cerca un lavoro
alle dipendenze . . . .
1
Iniziera tra breve un
lavoro alle dipenden­
ze fpcste gia trovama non ancora
.............
2
occupato)
Iniziery
un
lavoro
in p roprio in epoca
successive ail'in d a g ine avendo gi& predisposto i mezzi per
esercitarlo ................ 3
Intende esercitare un
lavoro
in
pro p rio ,
non avendo predisposto mezzi per esercitarlo
.......................... 4
NO, ma potrebbe tavorare a p a rtic o la ri
condizioni ................ 5
NO, non ha possibi­
lity
o interesse a
lavorare
6
NO, ha g ii un iavoe non ne cerca
un altro . ................
7
Cel. 21 - DURATA
DELLA RICERCA
N .ro dei mesi di ricerca,
due cifre, anteponendo uno zero se occorre
(se la ricerca non 4 an­
cora iniziata indicare 00)

Iscrizione presso ufficio pubblico
di collocamento ..............................
iscrizione presso agenzie private
di collocam ento .................. ...
V isita personale a p o ssibili datori
di lavoro ........ ......................
Segnalazione a datori d i lavoro
da parte di am ici s conoscenti
Invio a d a to ri d! lavoro di deman
de scritte d i assunzione c parte
cipazione a concorsi ..............
Inserzione sui g-ernaii per rich ie
ste d i lavoro ..........................
Risposta ad inserzioni di d atori di
lavoro pubblicate sui g io rn a li . . . .
Azioni concrete d i ricerca non an­
cora iniziate ..............................

1

Col. 23 - EPOCA DELL'ULTIMA AZIONE COMF1 UT A
Negli
Da 1
O ltre
Non

u ltim i 3u s :orn i ..................
a 6 mes- fa ..........................
6 mesi fa .................. ..........
ancora com piuta ..................

26

27

Col. 24 - CAUSA DELLA NON RICERCA

- Al

q u e s ilo v a
d a t a r is p o s t a p e r t u t t i
i c o m p o n e n ti f a m ilia r i
d i a l m e n o 14 a n n i d i
e ta , q u a lu n q u e s ia la
c o n d in o n e d i c o l. 1 0 ).

25

1
2
3
4

( N . B . - U r i l e v a i o r e n o n le g g a le
c a u s e e le n c a t e , m a a s c o lti le m o d v a iio n i d e lla p e r s o n a e in d ic h i ii
c o d ic e c h e f a a l c a s o . Se la p e rs o ­
n a in d ic a p iii d i u n m o tiv o , f a r e
r if e r im e n t o a l m o tiv o p r e v a le n t e ) .

M o tivi d i fa m ig lia (assistenza a
f ig li e a ltr i parent i, a ltri obbli
ghi fa m ih a ri, ecc.) ................
M o tivi di studio ......................
R itiro dal lavoro per ety . . . .
M o tivi di salute, in v a lid ity o a ltro
im pedim enta
fisico
(compresa
1'ety avanzata) ...............................
Assenza d i bisogne ..........................
Vana ricerca d i un lavoro in passeta
...............................................
Convinzione di non disporre di $ufficier.te preparazione p ro fe s s io n a l
e di non poter trovare un lavoro
adatto a lle pro p rie p o ssib ility ..
E' considerate troppo giovane o
troppo vecchio dai d a to ri di lavoro
Servizio d i leva ..............................
Non sa .............................................

4
5
6

7

8
9
0

Col. 25 - STUDIO E LAVORO

Col. 24 . CONTR1BUTO REDOI TO FAMILIARE
Rispondere per tu tti i componenti
della fa m ig lia con almeno 10 anni
d 'ety.

ATTEN2IONE. L fam d vo o o rt in»*rvi»t«i«, a loro dom , n n a p n d e rs la se ana di riferim
e iglia o n sse
i
icil*© o p o a e o a
ttim
ento. I m
odel!! d v n e s re restituiti aii'IS T ehtro a n n oltre il 1 * giorne su c s iv a quelle di riferim
eo o se
TA
o
2
ces e
ento.

Italy: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status:
Questionnaire used prior to 1977

Columns 8-19, To be completed only for persons 14 years of age and over:
Column 10. Status:
Professional
Employed
Seeking a new job
Nonprofessional
In search of first job
Military conscript
Housewife
Student
Unable to work
Retired
Other (financially independent, old age, prisoner, vagabond, etc.)
Columns 11-16. To be completed for all employed persons and persons seeking a new job and for per­
sons whose status is nonprofessional if they worked during the reference week:
Column 11. Hours worked during the reference week
Columns 12-13. If less than 40 hours, indicate:
Column 12. Reason:
Sickness or maternity
Labor dispute
Vacation or holiday
Bad weather
Start or termination of job during the reference week
Work contract or terms of employment
Underemployed
—seasonal reasons
-other reasons
Not convenient or interested in working longer hours
Other (specify)
Column 13. Are you taking advantage of the Wage Supplement Fund?
Column 14. Industry
Column 15. Class of worker (self-employed, wage or salary worker, unpaid family worker)
Column 16, Occupation
Column 17. Duration of seeking employment (to be completed for persons whose status is seeking a
new job or in search of first job)




127

Italy: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status:
Questionnaire used from 1977 onward

Columns 8-24. To be completed only for persons 14 years of age and over:
Column 10. Status:
1. Employed
2. Seeking a new job
3. In search of first job
4. Military conscript
5. Housewife
6. Student
7. Unable to work
8. Retired
9. Other (financially independent, old age, etc.)
Column 11. Whatever the status declared, did you do any work at all in the reference week? If yes,
indicate the number of hours worked in all the activities in which the individual or the family made
earnings or profits.
Columns 12-19. To be completed for all employed persons and persons seeking a new job. For all other
persons, complete only if 1 hour or more of work has been done in the reference week.
Column 12. Profession
Column 13. Position in the profession
Column 14. Branch of economic activity
Column 15. Hours worked during the reference week
Column 16. If less than 40 hours, indicate the reason:
1. Sickness or maternity
2. Labor dispute
3. Vacation or holiday
4. Bad weather
5. Start or termination of job during reference week
6. Work contract or terms of employment
7. Seasonal cause
8. Reduced business activity
9. Have not found opportunity for more work
10. Not convenient or interested in working longer hours
00. Other
Column 17. Place of work
Column 18. Regularity of activity (regular, seasonal, occasional, etc.)




128

Italy: English translation of labor force survey questions relating to labor force status:
Questionnaire used from 1977 onward—Continued

Column 19. Aside from your principal activity, do you do other work at another time of the year?
Column 20. To be completed by all persons age 14 or over, whatever the status reported in column 10.
Are you actively seeking work?
1. Yes, seeking a wage or salary job
2. Will soon begin a wage or salary job
3. Will begin, subsequent to reference week, self-employment and already have the necessary
means
4. Intend to become self-employed, but do not yet have the necessary means to do so
5. No, would seek work only under certain conditions
6. No, do not have the possibility or the interest in seeking work
7. No, have a job and not seeking another
Columns 21 to 23. To be completed by all who responded according to number 1 or number 2 in col­
umn 20,
Column 21. How long have you been looking for work? (If the search has not begun, enter zero.)
Column 22. What definite actions have you taken to find work?
1. Registered at public employment office
2. Registered at private employment agency
3. Visited employers
4. Brought to attention of an employer by friends or acquaintances
5. Sent a resume to an employer or took a competitive exam
6. Placed an ad in a newspaper
7. Responded to an ad in a newspaper
8. Have not yet taken active steps to find work
Column 23. When did you last take definite action to find work?
1. In the last 30 days
2. One to six months ago
3. Over 6 months ago
4. Have not begun job search
Column 24. To be completed by those who responded according to number 5 or 6 in column 20.
Column 24. Why are you not actively seeking work? (The interviewer does not read the causes listed,
but records response of the person interviewed.)
1. Family reasons
2. Studies
3. Retired
4. Health, invalidity, or other physical impediment
5. Absence of need
6. Searched in vain in the past
7. Insufficient professional preparation
8. Too young or too old
9. Military duty
10. Don’t know



129

April, July, and October and with reference to the cal
endar week which includes the 20th of the month. Earlier
surveys were conducted in September 1952, May 1954,
May 1955, April 1956, May and November 1957, and
October 1958. The surveys currently cover about 83,000
households distributed among some 1,400 communities
representative of the whole country. They are carried out
by personal interview.
Until 1972 the surveys covered the noninstitutional
resident population, including persons temporarily working
abroad and accompanying family members. Separate re­
sults were also published for the present-in-area population,
which excludes persons temporarily abroad. Beginning in
1972, only the present-in-area population has been sur­
veyed. Summary survey results are published by 1STAT in
the Bollettino Mensile di Statistica and the Notiziario
1STAT (foglio 34). More detailed results are published an­
nually in the Annuario di Statistiche de Lavoro.
Modifications in the survey were made in January
1964 and January 1977. Beginning in January 1964, un­
employed persons were defined as all those 14 years of age
and over who did not work at all in the survey week and
were actively seeking work. Prior to 1964, unemployed
persons were defined as all those 14 years of age and over
who actively sought work during the survey week and (a)
did not work at all or (b) stated they did not have jobs
(even though they may have done some work in the survey
week).
In the surveys prior to January 1977, one question
determined a person’s labor force status. This question
inquired as to the respondent’s “condition” during the
reference week. The possible answers on the survey form
were as follows:
Professional:

The results of the sample survey form the basis of the ad­
justment to U.S. concepts.
A major revision in survey methods was made in
January 1977. The definition of unemployment remained
essentially the same, but more probing questions were in­
corporated in the survey questionnaire. The more prob­
ing style of questioning resulted in significant increases in
the number of persons enumerated as employed and un­
employed. In addition, questions are now asked on work­
seeking activities, and it is possible to determine the num­
ber of persons who have not taken active steps to find work
in the past 30 days. The results indicate that there are a
large number of such persons, who would probably be classi­
fied as “discouraged workers” rather than as unemployed
under U.S. concepts. However, many may be registered un­
employed persons who do not consider the listing of one’s
name on the unemployment register to be an active job
search step in the last 30 days.
At the time this section was prepared, BLS had the
summary results of the January and April 1977 surveys
and the new survey definitions and questionnaire. BLS
may revise its adjusted estimates of Italian labor force data
after the complete results of the new surveys are obtained
and certain remaining points have been clarified.
Unemployment

Registered unemployed. Italy tabulates the number of job­
seekers 15 years of age and over registered at the local em­
ployment offices of the Ministry of Labor on the last day
of each month. They are divided into five classes: (1) Un­
employed formerly employed persons seeking work; (2)
youths under age 21 and others seeking their first job and
jobseekers released from military service; (3) housewives
seeking work for the first time; (4) pensioners seeking em­
ployment; and (5) employed persons seeking other jobs.
Usually classes (1) and (2), representing over 90 percent
of the total in recent years, are used as a measure of un­
employment.
Until the recent modifications in the Italian labor
force survey, the registrations series was commonly ac­
knowledged to overstate the level of unemployment be­
cause of failure of registrants to cancel their registra­
tions promptly after obtaining jobs. The registration
figures formerly were considerably higher than the un­
employment data derived from the labor force survey.
For example, in 1975 an average of 1,202,000 persons28
were registered as unemployed; according to the labor force
survey, 654,000 were unemployed. However, in January
1977, when more probing questions were incorporated in
the survey, the survey enumerated 1,459,000 unemployed
persons, while the registrations series counted 1314,000.

Employed
Seeking a new job

Nonprofessional:
Seeking first job
Military conscript
Housewife
Student
Unable to work (handicapped)
Pensioner
Other (independent means, aged, etc.)
According to the definitions appearing on the survey
form, persons enumerated as “seeking a new job” were
those who had lost their job, were looking for another job,
and were in a condition to accept a job if it was offered.
This group of persons is referred to as the unemployed-^/soccupati— the survey results. Persons enumerated as
in
“seeking first job” were those who had never been employed
and were actively seeking work. The sum of the unemployed
and the first-time jobseekers is referred to as those in search
of work— cerca di occupazione—m the survey results.
in
According to 1STAT, persons on layoff who were
waiting to return to their jobs would most likely respond
that they were employed. Persons not looking for work in

Labor force surveys. Beginning with January 1959, the
Italian Central Institute of Statistics (1STAT) has con­
ducted quarterly labor force surveys, usually in January,
2 8Classes 1 and 2 of registered unemployed persons.



130

In January 1977, more probing questions were in­
the survey week because of temporary illness and persons
waiting to start a new job would most likely be classified corporated into the regular Italian labor force survey
as not in the labor force since they were not actively seek­ questionnaire and the definition of unemployment was
ing work. However, no specific questions were asked on any made more precise. In addition to asking about a person’s
condition during the smvey week, specific questions con­
of these categories.
Although the survey definitions stated that persons cerning workseeking activities are now asked. The current
“seeking a new job” or “seeking first job” should be ac­ definition of unemployment—
person in cerca di occupaztively seeking work, there was no test or time period ione—refers to all persons looking for work, including: (1)
specified for workseeking activities. All persons enumer­ Those previously employed, namely persons age 14 and
ated as seeking work were asked the duration of their job over who have lost previously held paid employment, have
search, and all persons responded according to some dura­ not performed any work during the reference week, and
tion. Thus, there was no category of persons who had not stated (a) that they were seeking paid employment and were
begun looking for work. However, persons who had taken able to accept it if offered to them; or (b) that they would
active steps to look for work more than 1 month ago, begin, subsequent to the survey period, paid employment
but had not done anything to find work during the month and had already found such employment; or (c) that they
including the reference week, were counted as unemployed. would become, subsequent to the survey period, self-em­
Aiso, current availability for work was noted in the defini­ ployed and already had the necessary means.30 (2) Those
tion of persons “seeking a new job” but not in the def­ seeking first job, namely, persons age 14 and over who had
inition of persons “seeking first job.” There was no test of never worked, or have been self-employed, or who have
voluntarily discontinued working for a period of time not
current availability in the survey questionnaire.
Special surveys of persons “not in the labor force” less than 1 year and fall within one of the three categories
conducted in April 1973 and April 1975 indicated that (“a,” “b,” or “c”) noted under the previously employed
many people were looking for work but not stating that above. (3) Those persons in occupations not classified as
they were unemployed or seeking a first job in the regular employment, namely, persons age 14 and over who stated
Italian surveys.29 These surveys, unlike the regular Italian initially that they were housewives, students, ex-workers,
survey described above, contained more probing questions. etc., but in answer to a second question in the course of
They attempted to elicit information on the Italian popu­ the interview affirmed that they were looking for employ­
lation’s attitude toward the labor market and reasons for ment. Included in this group are the persons who described
nonparticipation in the labor force. Persons age 14 through themselves as previously employed or seeking their first
job (1 and 2 above) and intended to become self-employed
70 were interviewed.
The April 1973 and 1975 surveys were coordinated but did not yet have the necessary means to do so.
with the regular April labor force surveys. They classified
The questions asked in the Italian survey concerning
the population in Italy into four categories according to workseeking activities are as follows: (1) Are you actively
degree of economic activity (table B-19): (1) Persons age 14 seeking work? (2) How long have you been looking for
or over who are employed, unemployed, or looking for work? (3) What definite actions have you taken to find
their first job. This represents the labor force in its most work? and (4) When did you last take definite action to
strict sense, and comprises those persons who respond that find work? Only an affirmative answer to the first question
they are economically active in the above senses (employed, or an answer expressing intent to begin a new job or selfunemployed, etc.) when asked their current “condition.” employment at a later date is required for enumeration of
In April 1973, there were 19 million such persons. (2) Per­ a person as unemployed. If the later questions elicit that
sons who say they are looking for a job who did not term the person has not actually begun his job search or has not
themselves as unemployed or seeking their first job in the taken any recent steps to find work, he is still classified as
question concerning current “condition.” There were unemployed.
660,000 such persons in April 1973. (3) Persons who say
Question (4) noted above is unique to the Italian
they are not looking for work but who would accept it survey as a test of workseeking activity. For example, the
under certain conditions. In April 1973, there were 1.1 U.S. survey asks “What have you been doing to look for
million persons in this category. (4) Persons who, although work in the past 4 weeks?” The difference here is that the
they are of working age (14-70), say that they are not U.S. question specifically mentions a time period-4
working, are not looking for work, and are not disposed weeks- while the Italian question asks when the person last
to accept work. In April 1973, there were 17.5 million per­ actively sought work. One of the answers to the Italian
sons in this category.
question on the survey form is “in the last 30 days.”
29 A special survey of persons “not in the labor force” was also
conducted in February 1971. However, it is of limited usefulness be­
cause it did not contain questions on workseeking activities. Also, it
was not conducted in conjunction with the regular quarterly survey.



131

30
In past surveys, persons who were seeking work who have been
self-employed were included in the “previously employed” cate­
gory. They are now included in the “seeking first job” category.
Also, groups “b” and “c” were not identified in previous interviews.

Table B-19. Italy: Selected results from special labor force surveys, April 1973 and April 1975
(Th ousands)

Item

April 1973
Total

Men

Labor force .............................................
Employed .........................................
Seeking another job . . . . . . .
Unemployed or seeking first job . .

18,999
18,264
(U
735

13,804
13,357
(U
447

Not in the labor force (ages 14-70) . .
Looked for work but did not
declare themselves as unem­
ployed in a previous question . .
Did not look for work, but would
accept work under certain
conditions......................................
Neither seeking work nor
interested in work under
certain c o n d itio n s ......................

19,265

Women

Total

Men

5,195
4,907
(U
288

19,436
18,769
1,055
667

13,984
13,585
783
399

5,452
5,184
272
268

4,889

14,376

19,710

5,132

14,578

658

153

505

496

140

356

1,12 1

190

931

908

158

750

17,486

4,546

12,940

18,306

4,834

13,472

1 Not available.

Annuario di Statis-

SOURCE:

Istituto Centrale de Statistica,
1975 (for April 1973 survey}, pp. 109-16; and
1976 (for April 1975 survey), pp. 103-15.

tiche del Lavoro,

BLS is not certain that all persons who do not res­
pond “in the last 30 days55 should be excluded from the
Italian unemployment figures for comparability with U.S.
concepts, which require active jobseeking within the past
4 weeks. In the Italian survey, there could be a number
of persons registered as unemployed who do not consider
their act of registration to be their last definite action
to find work, especially if reregistration is not required each
month in order to obtain unemployment benefits. A cross­
classification between jobseeking activities and time of last
active job search would help to resolve this point.
Results from the January and April 1977 surveys,
like the results of the special April 1973 and 1975 sur­
veys, indicate that a large number of persons classified as
“not in the labor force” in former surveys were actually
actively seeking work by registering at official or private
employment agencies, answering or placing advertisements
in the newspapers, sending letters, or meeting with prospec­
tive employers. As noted above, the 1977 surveys also in­
dicated that a significant proportion of persons previously
enumerated as unemployed did not take any recent—i.e.,
within the past 30 days—active steps to find work.31 The
major results of the January 1977 survey are shown in table
B-20.
Beginning in January 1977, persons who are waiting
to begin new jobs are enumerated as unemployed. There is
no specific question on this point, but it is one of the re­
sponses listed to the question “Are you actively seeking
work?” Such persons were most likely classified as not in
31 The January 1977 results indicate that 65 percent of the pre­

the labor force in earlier surveys. The category of persons
seeking their first job was defined more broadly in January
1977 to include persons who had voluntarily discontinued
working for a period of time not less than 1 year. Under the
previous definition, such reentrants to the labor force were
not included among the first-time jobseekers. They were
classified as “seeking a new job.”
Table B-20. Italy: Major results of the January 1977
labor force survey
(Th ousands)

Item

Total

Men

Labor f o r c e .........................................
Employed .......................................
Persons stating they have a
job .........................................
Persons first stating they
were unemployed, but then
admitting to some type of
work in reference week . . .
Unemployed . .......................
Previously em p loyed ................
Seeking first job ......................
Persons who first stated
they were inactive but
subsequently affirmed
they were looking for
w o r k ......................................

21,357
19,898

14,551
13,904

6,806
5,994

18,991

13,499

5,492

907
1,459
253
619

405
647
159
308

502
812
94
311

587

180

407

Nonworking p o p u la tio n ...................
Persons of working age1 .............
Not seeking employment but
would accept work under
certain conditions . . . . . .
Persons not of working age2 . . .

34,132
18,220

12,517
4,784

21,615
13,436

1,12 2
15,912

233
7,733

889
8,179

Total population 3

viously employed unemployed took active steps to find work in the
past 30 days; for the first-time jobseekers, the proportion was 55
percent; for those who first did not declare themselves as employed,
the proportion was 32 percent. In the April 1977 survey, the corres­
ponding proportions were 63,53, and 33 percent.




April 1975
Women

55,489

27,068

28,421

.............................

1 Ages 14 through 70.

\ Under age 14 and over age 70.
^Sum of labor force and nonworking population.
SOURCE: Istituto Centrale di Statistica.

132

Women

Method o f adjustment. From January 1977 onward, the
only adjustment made to the reported number of unem­
ployed is the exclusion of those who had not taken any
active steps to find jobs in the past 30 days. As noted
above, BLS is not certain that all persons should be ex­
cluded who reported no active steps in the past 30 days.
The large number of persons in this category indicates a
massive number of “discouraged workers” in Italy or an
interpretation by many registered unemployed persons
that their presence on the unemployment register does not
constitute an active step to find work in the past 30 days.
In the adjustments shown here, BLS has excluded all per­
sons who reported no active steps to find work in the past
30 days. This adjustment may be modified when more in­
formation on the 1977 survey, and more detailed results,
become available. In January 1977, 52.6 percent of the
reported unemployment has been subtracted; in April,
the proportion subtracted was 54.4 percent.
No adjustment has been made to exclude persons
on layoff from the unemployed count. For many years
Italy has had a Wage Supplement Fund (Cassa Integrazione
Guadagni) maintained by employer contributions, which
provides payments to compensate workers put on part time
for economic reasons of a temporary nature. Also, legal
restraints make it very difficult for firms to lay off workers.
For these reasons, the term layoff has a somewhat different,
more structured meaning in Italy than in the United States.
Thus, when the activity of a plant declines, workers are put
on short-time schedules, if at all possible, rather than laid
off. According to a 1969 report from the U.S. Embassy in
Rome, the number on part time who did no work at all dur­
ing the reference week could not be accurately reported
by ISTAT because there were so few workers in that cate­
gory.
1STAT will not make a reconciliation between the old
and new surveys until some time in 1978. It is not yet
known what the nature of this reconciliation will be and
whether historical adjustments will be made. BLS has de­
cided to await the ISTAT reconciliation rather than make
any preliminary adjustments for the period 1959-76. Thus,
the reported unemployment figures from the old Italian
survey are used here, with only a small adjustment to the
data for 1959-63 (discussed later). The differences between
the old series and the adjusted new series may tend to can­
cel each other out. The old series excluded the workseekers
who did not initially declare themselves as unemployed;
also excluded were persons waiting to begin a new job. On
the other hand, the old series included as unemployed
those persons who took no active steps to find work in the
past 30 days. The results from January and April 1977 in­
dicate that the old series may have overstated unemploy ­
ment somewhat because the number of persons who did
not actively seek work in the past 30 days is greater than
the number of workseekers who did not initially say they
were unemployed.



133

The results of the special April 1973 and 1975 labor
force surveys provided information on the number of job
seekers who did not initially declare they were unemployed.
However, these surveys were not used to adjust the unem­
ployment data because they did not provide any information
on the time period in which active jobseeking last occurred.
Thus, no adjustment could be made to exclude the inactive
workseekers.
One other minor adjustment has been made to the
data for 1959 to 1963. According to the report of the Sta­
tistical Office of the European Communities on the results
of the October 1960 labor force survey conducted in the
six member countries, 4.4 percent of those reported as un­
employed in Italy in October 1960 were engaged in some
work during the survey week. However, this would prob­
ably include some unpaid family workers who worked less
than 15 hours in the survey week and who would be classi­
fied as unemployed according to U.S. definitions if they
were seeking paid employment. To roughly adjust the
Italian unemployment figures for 1959-63 to exclude per­
sons who worked during the survey week, the published
figures have been reduced by 3 percent. No adjustments
are needed after 1963 since such persons were excluded
from the reported unemployed after that date.
Labor force

The labor force consists of all employed and unem­
ployed persons 14 years of age and over; career military
personnel are included. Prior to 1964, the labor force con­
sisted of all “regularly” employed persons 10 years of age
and over and unemployed persons 14 years of age and over.
Unpaid family workers are included in the labor force re­
gardless of the number of hours worked.
The employed consist of persons age 14 and over who
worked for pay or profit during the survey week or who
were temporarily absent from work as a result of sickness,
holidays, or temporary layoff. Prior to 1964. employed per­
sons consisted of all those 10 years of age or over who stated
they had jobs, regardless of the number of hours they
worked. Persons 10 years of age and over who did some
work in the survey week but who stated they did not have
jobs were classified as either (a) occasional workers and
“not in the labor force” or (b) unemployed, if 14 years
of age or over and actively seeking a job. Beginning in
1964, the occasional worker category was dropped in
favor of underemployed persons—defined as persons who
worked less than 33 hours in the reference week because of
economic reasons, i.e., lack of work, and not because of
their own preference.32 Underemployed persons are classi­
fied as a subcategory of employed persons and therefore as
“in the labor force.” ISTAT revised data for 1963 by (1;
32Beginning in January 1977, underemployed persons ate de­
fined as those who worked less than 26 hours for economic reasons.

adding all persons formerly classified as occasional workers
to the employed category and (2) reclassifying part of the
new total employed category into the underemployed sub­
category. (The new definitions were apparently introduced
in' 1963 so that 1963 survey results could be classified ac­
cording to both the old and new labor force status defini­
tions.) For years prior to 1963,1ST AT added the total “oc­
casional worker” category to the employed total.
The January and April 1977 labor force surveys in­
dicated that employment as well as unemployment was
understated by prior surveys. Approximately 1 million per­
sons who did not initially respond that they were employed
stated, under further questioning, that they had done some
work during the reference week.33 Unfortunately, no infor­
mation on this point was obtained in the special surveys
conducted in April 1973 and 1975.
Method o f adjustment. Data on career military personnel
in Italy can be obtained from figures reported to the Sta­
tistical Office of the European Communities. The career
military are subtracted from the reported labor force to
arrive at the civilian labor force.
Employed youths under the age of 14 are subtracted,
including those classified as occasional workers in 1959-62;
no adjustment is needed on this point after 1965.
Unpaid family workers not at work in the survey
week are subtracted. These figures are reported in the sur­
vey. “Regularly employed” unpaid family workers at work
1 but less than 16 hours in the survey week are also sub­
tracted. U.S. definitions would exclude unpaid family work­
ers at work less than 15 hours in the survey week; however,
the Italian data do not provide a break at the less-than45hours level.
For the years 1959-63, the number of “occasional
workers” at work less than 16 hours in the survey week as
unpaid family workers is subtracted. In 1963, 75,000 “oc­
casional workers” worked as unpaid family workers, of
whom 25,000 worked less than 16 hours. Prior to 1963, the
number of unpaid family “occasional workers” was not
classified by number of hours worked. Since one-third of
the unpaid family occasional workers worked less than 163
3 3There is also a large sector of illegal unreported unemployment
in Italy known as il lavoro m ro, or the labor black market. Use of the
labor black market allows firms to pay lower wages and avoid pay­
ments into social security and similar funds, which are very high in
Italy relative to wages. Also, firms using black market labor can by­
pass laws that make it virtually impossible to lay off workers in
slack periods. Becuase the jobs are unreported, there are also no
tax or social security deductions from the wages received by the
workers. No attempt has been made here to determine the effect of
the labor black market on the labor force survey results. Some il­
legally employed workers may report their employment in the
survey, but it is likely that many will respond that they are either
not in the labor force or unemployed. For a discussion of hidden
employment in Italy see CENS1S, L ’O ccupazione Occulta, CENSIS
Ricerca No. 2 (Rome, CENSIS, 1976).



134

hours in 1963, it is roughly estimated that one-third of un­
paid family occasional workers worked less than 16 hours
in prior years, and they have been subtracted from the
labor force.
Results of the January and April 1977 labor force
surveys indicate that employed Italian men were under­
counted by 3 percent and women by 9 percent. These fig­
ures were also reported by economic sector. To make ad­
justments for the unreported employed for the entire 195976 period, adjustment factors were applied for four sep­
arate categories of the employed: (1) Men in agriculture;
(2) men in nonagricultural activities; (3) women in agricul­
ture; and (4) women in nonagricultural activities. Factors
relating to sectors as well as sex were used because there
has been a massive shift out of the agricultural sector in
Italy since 1959. The figures for January and April 1977
indicate that unreported employment is predominantly
in the agricultural sector.
The adjustment factors used were averages calculated
from the January and April 1977 data. The factors, relating
to unreported as a percent of reported employment, were
as follows: For men in agriculture—10.1 percent; for men in
nonagricultural activities—2 percent; for women in agricul­
ture-21.7 percent; for women in nonagricultural activities6.7 percent. A further adjustment was made to exclude
persons in the unreported employed category who were
unpaid family workers who worked 15 hours or less in the
reference week. Data are not yet available on this point
from the 1977 surveys. However, these surveys indicated
that about 60 percent of the previously unreported em­
ployed were either self-employed or unpaid family workers.
It is believed that a significant proportion of the unreported
employed could be unpaid family workers who worked
only a few hours a week. Persons in this category should be
excluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Persons
with such a marginal attachment to the labor force would
most likely initially respond that their status was other
than employed— housewife, student, etc. In the ab­
e.g.,
sence of exact data on this point, 10 percent of the “un­
reported employed,” as calculated above for the years
1959-76, was subtracted to account for unpaid family
workers who worked less than 15 hours. BLS is attempting
to get precise figures on this point from ISTAT, perhaps
from unpublished tabulations. Table B-21 shows the
method of obtaining unreported employment for 195976. The labor force therefore has been adjusted to U.S.
concepts by adding estimates of unreported employment
and subtracting career military personnel, employed
youths under age 14, and unpaid family workers who
worked less than 16 hours in the survey week. There may
be some duplication between the latter two categories—
that is, unpaid family workers under age 14 who worked
less than 16 hours in the survey week. However, after
1965 there have been no employed youths under age
14 reported and duplication in prior years could not have
been large.

Table B-21. Italy: Calculation of unreported employment, 1959-76
(Th ousands)

Estimated unreported employment1

Reported employment
Year

Agricultural

Nonagricultural

Men
1959 ................
1960 ................
1 9 6 1 ................
1962 ................
1963 ................
1964 ................
1965 ................
1966 ................
1967 ................
1968 ................
1969 ................
1970 ................
1 9 7 1 ................
1972 ................
1973 ................
1974 ................
1975 ................
1976 ................

Women

Men

3 2,301
3 2,124
3 2,072

39,315
39,596
39,900
3 10,190
3 10,406
3 10,715
3 10,398
10,428
10,697
10,880
10,879
11,170
11,164
11,176
11,306
11,571
11,717
11,742

3 3,822,

Total

Women

3 4,449

Agricultural

a4,353
34,060
33,781
33,500
3 3,307
3 3,349
3,192
3,122
2,869
2,706
2,499
2,453
2,274
2,176
2,105
1,999
1,959

3 1,988
3 1,765
3 1,621
3 1,544
1,397
1,358
1,304
1,245
1,114
1,135
1,024
1,016
1,006
965
970

33,792
33 ,9 0 4 ;
3 3,879|
3 3,868
33,807
3 3,693
3,620
3,669
3,747
3,781
3,910
3,893
3,857
4,002
4,216
4,315
4,455

Men

1,020
979
978
934
934
944
934
941

Women

Men

Women

449
440
410
382
354
334
338
322
315
290
273
252
248
230

1,390
1,347
1,320
1,277
1,204
1,155
1,128
1,077
1,070
1,042

499
461
450
431
383
352
335
303
295
283
270
242
246

186
192
198
204
208
214
208
209
214
218
218
223
223
224
226
231
234
235

256
254
262
260
259
255
247
243
246
251
259
262
261
258
268
282
289
298

220
213

222
220

202

218
209

198

210

Adjusted
un reported
employment 2
1,251

1 ,2 12
1,188
1,149
1,084
1,039
1,015
969
963
938
918
881
880
841
841
850
841
847

2

Adjustments based on figures from the January and April 1977
labor force surveys. For men in agriculture—10.1 percent of re­
ported employment; for women in agriculture—21.7 percent; for
men in nonagricultural activities— percent; for women in non2
agricultural activities—
6.7 percent.

Total unreported employment less 10 percent to account for
unpaid family workers who worked less than 15 hours in the refer­
ence week.
3 Adjusted to exclude employed persons under age 14.

rates adjusted to U.S. concepts for Italy. Since the Italian
labor force survey is conducted quarterly, no monthly esti­
mates of joblessness on the labor force survey basis are
made.

Unemployment rate

The figure for the unemployed (adjusted to exclude
those who worked in 1959-63) is divided by the adjusted
labor force figure to arrive at Italian unemployment rates
compatible with U.S. concepts. The resulting rates for 1959
through 1963 are about two-tenths of a percentage point
lower than the reported Italian unemployment rate (table
B-22). For 1964-76, the adjusted unemployment rates are
one-tenth of a percentage point lower than the published
rates. Beginning in January 1977, however, the published
Italian unemployment data are on the revised basis and are
much higher than previously reported. The adjusted figures
are much lower than the reported unemployment rates be­
cause of the exclusion of a large number of inactive work­
seekers.
Annual average unemployment rates are calculated by
1STAT as the average of the relevant data for January,
April, July, and October. The average for these four dates is
not exactly representative of the calendar year; however,
BLS has not adjusted these data to a calendar-year basis.

Unemployment. Italy does not publish seasonally adjusted
labor force data. For 1970 through 1976, BLS seasonally
adjusted the reported Italian unemployment figures; no
adjustments for comparability with U.S. concepts have
been made to these figures. Seasonal adjustment is by the
multiplicative version of the U.S. Bureau of the Census
X-l 1 Variant, Method II, seasonal adjustment program.
The unemployment data beginning in 1977 do re­
quire adjustment for comparability with U.S. concepts.
After adjustment, the data have been seasonally adjusted
based on the previous year’s seasonal factors. This assumes
that seasonal factors based on the pre-1977 survey results
are applicable to the new, adjusted, survey results.
Labor force. BLS seasonally adjusts the reported quarterly
Italian labor force data and then applies factors to adjust
the figures for comparability with U.S. definitions.

Quarterly estimates

BLS estimates seasonally adjusted unemployment




Nonagricultural

135

Table B-22. Italy: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959*76
(Numbers in thousands)

Item
Reported labor fo rc e ............................................................................
Less: Career military p e rs o n n e l...................................................
Less: Employed persons
under age 1 4 ......................................................................... ... .
Less: Unpaid family workers
not at w o r k ...................................................................................
Less: Unpaid family workers
at work less than 16 hours ......................................................
Less: Unpaid family "occasional
workers" at work less than
16 h o u rs .........................................................................................
Plus: Unreported employment 5 ...................................................
Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................
R o u n d e d ......................................................................................
Reported unemployment6 ...............................................................
Less: Reported unemployed
who worked in the survey
w e e k ...............................................................................................
Adjusted u n e m p lo y e d .........................................................................
Rounded ............................................................................................

1959

1960

1962

1963

1964

1966

1967

282

271

236

180

94

27

19

0

0

*75

70

62

38

58

21

19

2 37

231

60

55

41

27

62

66

76

60

49

3 206
3 130
386
3 139
3 25
(4 )
(4 )
(4 )
(4 )
1,2 12 1,188 1,149 1,084 1,039 1,015
963
1,251
969
21,732 21,515 21,447 21,287 20,827 20,759 20,430 20,092 20,223
21,730 21,520 21,450 21,290 20,830 20,760 20,430 20,090 20,220
1,117

836

710

611

504

549

714

759

679

34
1,083
1,080

25
811
810

21
689
690

18
593
590

15
489
490

(4 )
549
550

(4 )
714
710

(4 )
759
760

(4 )
679
680

5.2
5.0

4.0
3.8

3.4
3.2

3.0

2.5
2.4

2.7

2.8

3.6
3.5

3.9
3.8

3.5
3.4

1968

1971

1970

1969

1972

2.6

1974

1973

19,484 19,266 19,302 19,254 19,028 19,169
195
198
182
190
191
191

1975

1976

19,458 19,650 19,858
183
169
169

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

235

2 17

2 19

2 18

221

2 22

2 17

2 14

212

60

51

35

61

44

50

46

39

36

(4 )
(4 )
(4 ) .
938
918
881
20,132 19,918 19,947
20,130 19,920 19,950

(4 )
880
19,865
19,870

(4)
(4 )
(4 )
(4 )
(4 )
841
841
841
850
847
19,613 19,747 20,062 20,269 20,488
19,610 19,750 20,060 20,270 20,490

Reported unemployment6 ............................................ ..................
Less: Reported unemployed
who worked in the survey
w e e k ............................................................................................ .
Adjusted u n e m p lo y e d .........................................................................
R o u n d e d ...................... .....................................................................

684

655

609

609

697

(4 )
684
680

(4 )
655
660

(4 )
609
610

(4 )
609
610

(4 )
697
700

Unemployment rate (percent):
As published......................................................................................
Adjusted to U.S. c o n c e p ts ...................................... ......................

3.5
3.4

3.4
3.3

3.2
3.1

3.2
3.1

3.7
3.6

1
2Estimated based on 1960 ratios.
Includes unknowns.

560

654

732

670

(4 )
560
560

(4 )
654
650

(4 )
732
730

3.5
3.4

2.9

2.8

3.3
3.2

3.7
3.6

668
(4 )

668

4 Not applicable after 1963.
5 See table B-21.
6Sum of reported unemployed and first-time jobseekers.

3 Estimated as one-third of all "occasional workers" who worked
as family workers.




1965

21,286 20,972 20,882 20,629 20,137 20,026 19,717 19,396 19,525
154
182
134
160
155
185
192
188
176

Unemployment rate (percent):
As p ub lish ed ......................................................................................
Adjusted to U.S. c o n c e p ts ......................................... ..................

Reported labor fo rc e ......................................................... ..................
Less: Career military p e rs o n n e l...................................................
Less: Employed persons
under age 1 4 ...............................................................................
Less: Unpaid family workers
not at w o r k ..................................................................................
Less: Unpaid family workers
at work less than 16 hours ......................................................
Less: Unpaid family "occasional
workers" at work less than
16 h ou rs.........................................................................................
Plus: Unreported employment5 ...................................................
Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................
R o u n d e d ............................................................................................

1961

136

About 12,000 persons were interviewed in the quar­
terly surveys. The sample size of the monthly surveys is
currently 23,000 persons.
The unemployed consist of all persons (excluding
invalids and institutionalized persons) between the ages of
16 and 74 who were not at work in the survey week (un­
paid family workers who worked less than 15 hours in the
survey week are considered not at work) who:
1. State they were looking for work (including per­
sons awaiting the results of previous applications)
within the past 60 days (counted from the last
day of the survey week); or
2. Were waiting to be called back to a job from
which they were laid off without pay ; or
3. Were waiting to start a new job within 30 days; or
4. Would have looked for work except for being
temporarily ill.

Sweden

Sweden depended for many years on unemploy­
ment statistics maintained by trade unions. From 1956
to mid-1974, however, the Swedish Labor Market Board
used monthly statistics on registrations of the unemployed
at local unemployment offices. In July 1974, these
monthly counts were replaced by new statistics showing the
total volume of employment applications passing through
the employment offices. At the same time, the monthly
labor force sample survey, begun on a regular quarterly
basis in 1962 and on a monthly basis in 1970, was estab­
lished as the official source for Swedish unemployment
figures.
Unemployment

Prior to 1970, all persons 14 years of age and over
were covered by the labor force surveys. However, data for
these years were collected in such a way that revision to the
new age limits of 16 to 74, instituted in 1970, could be
made by Swedish authorities.
The 1967 revisions of the U.S. definitions brought
them closer to the Swedish definitions. Under the revised
U.S. definitions, a person must have engaged in some speci­
fic jobseeking activity within the past 4 weeks to be counted
as unemployed. Prior to the revisions, there had been no
specific question concerning methods of seeking work. In
the Swedish survey there is a specific question—“In what
way did you seek work?’’-which is partially a check on
the earlier question—“Were you looking for work?” This is
quite similar to the current U.S. procedure. However, the
time limit in the Swedish survey is 60 days rather than the
4-week period specified in the U.S. survey.
As in the United States, discouraged workers are
classified as not in the labor force in Sweden.34 Until 1976,
Sweden collected data on discouraged workers by asking
the question: “Would you have looked for work if you
believed suitable work was available in your area?” In 1976,
the phrasing of the question was changed, and the follow­
ing three questions are now asked of persons not in the
labor force: “Would you have liked to have worked last
week?” “Were you prevented from working last week?”
and “Why were you prevented from working last week?”
In the United States, the questioning procedure relating to
discouraged workers is similar to that now used in Sweden.
In the Swedish survey, students seeking work and
currently available for work are supposed to be classified
as unemployed, i.e., the classification used in the U.S. sur­
vey for such persons. However, a problem in enumerating
unemployed students arises from the fact that there is no
specific test of current availability for work in the Swedish
questionnaire. In practice, therefore, the interviewers are

Registered unemployed. Prior to July 1974, registration sta­
tistics comprised all persons registered as unemployed with
the employment offices on the Monday in the week includ­
ing the 15th of the month. The new employment applica­
tion statistics, introduced in July 1974, represent the first
phase of a coordinated statistical information system cover­
ing employment applications, job vacancies, and labor
market policy measures. This system is intended to form
the basis for planning activities at all levels of the employ­
ment service organization.
The new statistics cover all persons who file employ­
ment applications at the employment offices, whether un­
employed or not. They show for each month the total
inflow and outflow of applicants, the number of individuals
transferring to retraining programs or public works projects,
and the number of applicants remaining on the registers at
the end of each month. Statistics on registered insured un­
employment are also available. These figures comprise
registrants for unemployment benefits by members of
unemployment insurance funds established by trade
unions. About two-thirds of the labor force belong to these
funds. Statistics on applications at employment offices and
on insured unemployment are published monthly by the
National Labor Market Board in Arbetsmarknadsstatistik
(Labor Market Statistics).
Labor force surveys. Since 1959, the Swedish Central
Bureau of Statistics has made sample surveys of the labor
force which are closely comparable in concepts and defini­
tions to the U.S. survey. The 1959 surveys, conducted
in May and November, were experimental. Two more were
made in 1960 and three more in 1961. From 1962 through
1969, quarterly surveys were conducted in February, May,
August, and November. Beginning in 1970, surveys have
been made on a monthly basis. The surveys are conducted
by telephone interview and relate to the week including
the 15th of the month. Results are published monthly by
the Central Bureau of Statistics in Arbetskraftsundersokningen (The Labor Force Survey).



34In Sweden, discouraged workers are referred to as the “latent
unemployed.”

137

of persons in the Swedish training programs receive a wage
or salary in connection with on-the-job training. These
persons are counted as employed in both Sweden and the
United States.
Inclusion of all persons in Swedish training and re­
training programs in the unemployed count would raise the
comparative Swedish rate by two-tenths of a percentage
point in 1961 (from 1.5 to 1.7) and by 1.1 percentage
points in 1973 (from 2.5 to 3.6). These figures, of course,
represent the outer limits of the probable effect of reclassi­
fying these persons according to the U.S. method. The ef­
fect is much smaller if we focus only upon special retrain­
ing programs for persons previously unemployed. There
were 4,700 persons in such courses in 1961 and 17,100
in 1973. Addition of these persons to the unemployed
count would raise the Swedish rate by one-tenth of a per­
centage point in 1961 and four-tenths of a percentage point
in 1973.

instructed to consider full-time students as unavailable for
work except during school vacations in order that a student
seeking work during the school term, but available for work
only during school vacation, would be excluded from the
unemployed count—the same practice as in the United
States. This practice, however, results in the classification
of Swedish students seeking part-time work after school
hours as not in the labor force. In the United States, they
would be regarded as unemployed.
In Sweden, “active labor market” policies are highly
developed and provide a comprehensive system of institu­
tions for training and retraining. Persons who are given a
wage or salary payment while receiving on-the-job training
or attending courses at the request of the employer are
classified as employed in the Swedish labor force survey.
This is the practice followed in the United States. Unlike
the United States, however, Sweden classifies as “not in
the labor force” persons receiving government-sponsored
vocational training or retraining without wage or salary
payment. Such persons generally would be regarded as
unemployed in the United States.

Labor force

The labor force figures used in Sweden include career
military personnel. The civilian labor force is used in U.S.
calculations of unemployment rates. Therefore, adjust­
ments are made to the reported Swedish labor force to
eliminate the career military (about 18,000 persons). Data
on career military personnel are obtained from Swedish
population censuses. A small adjustment is also made to in­
clude in the labor force persons age 75 and older. Data on
these persons were available from the quarterly surveys
conducted in the 1961-69 period. From 1970 onward,
these data are derived from special tabulations.

Method o f adjustment. No adjustments have been made in
the Swedish unemployed count as measured by the labor
force surveys. It is not necessary to add figures for unem­
ployed persons age 75 and over since unemployment
among such persons is negligible.
No adjustment has been made for students seeking
work during the school term. Data derived from the new
questions on discouraged workers indicate that the number
of such students is small. The number of students who
would have liked a job and who were currently available for
work during the survey week averaged about 4,000 in 1976.
However, this represents an upper limit of the possible
number of unemployed students who should be added be­
cause not all of these students were actively seeking work.
Even at the upper limit, the resulting increase in the un­
employment rate would be only about one-tenth of 1 per­
cent.
No adjustment could be made for the more lengthy
period allowed for jobseeking activities in Sweden—60 days
as opposed to the 4-week period specified in the U.S. sur­
vey. The longer period allowed in Sweden undoubtedly
results in some upward bias in the Swedish unemployment
data when compared with U.S. figures.
No adjustment could be made for the classification
of persons in government-sponsored institutional training
programs as outside the labor force rather than unemployed.
The monthly average number of persons in training for
labor market reasons rose continuously from 8,100 in 1961
to 46,000 in 1973, then moved downward to 36,000 in
1975. However, all such persons would not be regarded as
unemployed under U.S. concepts. For example, some
Swedish training programs for youth are similar to the U.S.
Job Corps program. Participants in the Job Corps are con­
sidered as not in the labor force. Also, an unknown number



Unemployment rate

The published Swedish unemployment rate is calcu­
lated by dividing the unemployed by the total labor force
aged 16 to 74. The adjusted rate is computed by dividing
the unemployed by the civilian labor force, adjusted to
include those 75 years old and over and to exclude career
military personnel. The effects of the adjustments are so
small that the reported and adjusted rates are identical
in most years (table B-23).
Quarterly and monthly estimates

The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates seasonally
adjusted unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts
for Sweden. The method used to make these estimates is
as follows:
Unemployment. Since the Swedish labor force survey con­
cept of unemployment is quite similar to that of the U.S.,
no adjustment is made for comparability. BLS uses the
Central Bureau of Statistics’ (SCB) seasonally adjusted un­
employment series. The SCB seasonally adjusts using the

138

Table B-23. Sweden: Labor force data adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1961-76
(Numbers in thousands)

Item

1961

21.0

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

24,8

2 1.2

20.0

26.7

20.1

17.0

16.6

22.2

1.2

23.3
18.6
1.3

1.4

1.1

1.1

1.4

Reported labor force
Age 14 and above ................................................................................
Age 16 to 7 4 ................ ..................................................................
Age 14 and 15 ............................................. ... ................... ...
Age 75 and over1 . ................................................................................
3
2

23,670
2 3,592
54
24

3,746
3,676
46
24

3,813
3,749
42

3,779
3,710
49

3,796
3,738
38

3,847
3,792
34

22

20

20

Labor force age 16 and over ................................ .....................................
Less: Career military personnel ..........................................................
Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................

3,616
18
3,598

3,700
18
3,682

3,771
18
3,753

3,730
19
3,711

Reported unemployed:
Age 16 to 7 4 .........................................................................................

252

54

63

Reported unemployment rate
(percent)
Age 16 to 7 4 ................ ......................................................................

2 1.4

1.5

Adjusted unemployment rate
(percent)4 ............................................................... ...............................

1.4

1.5

Registered unemployed ................................................................................
Registered insured unemployed ................................................................
Percent of total insured ......................................................................

16.6

1967

1968

35.3
28.8
1.7

40.1
33.4

21

3,817
3,774
27
16

3,867
3,822
27
18

3,758
19
3,739

3,813
19
3.794

3,790
19
3,771

3,840
18
3,822

57

44

59

79

85

1.7

1.6

1.2

1.6

2.1

2.2

1.7

1.5

1.2

1.6

2.1

2.2

2.0

Labor force survey data:

:1

1969
Registered unemployed .............................................................
Registered insured unemployed ................................................................
Percent of total insured .........................................................

36.0
29.9
1.7

Reported labor force : 1
Age 14 and above ...............................................................................
Age 16 to 7 4 .........................................................................................
Age 14 and 15 ......................................................................................
Age 75 and over3 ...................................................................................

1970

1971

1972

36.5
29.5
1.5

59.6
45.3

69.0
48.2

2.0

2.0

3,877
3,840
23
14

3,913

3,961
—

3,969
-

14

12

12

Labor force age 16 and over ......................................................... ...
Less: Career military personnel.........................................................
Adjusted civilian labor f o r c e ............................................................

3,854
18
3,836

3,927
18
3,909

3,973
18
3,955

Reported unemployed:
Age 16 to 7 4 ........................................................................................

72

59

Reported unemployment rate
(percent)
Age 16 to 7 4 ................................................... .....................................

1.9

Adjusted unemployment rate
(percent)4 ...............................................................................................

1.9

1973

1974

1975

1976

66.2

_

_

—

46.0
1.9

39.0
1.5

36.7
1.4

32.7

1.2

Labor force survey data:

1

-

—
3,977

-

-

-

4,043
-

4,129

12

12

12

12

3,981
18
3,963

3,989
18
3,971

4,055
18
4,037

4,141
18
4,123

4,167
18
4,149

101

107

98

80

67

66

1.5

2.5

2.7

2.5

2.0

1.6

1.6

1.5

2.6

2.7

2.5

2.0

1.6

1.6

-

-

-

4,155
-

Beginning January 1970, the age limits of the Swedish labor
force survey were revised to cover persons age 16 to 74. Previously,
persons age 14 and above were covered. A revised series of data back
to 1962 based on the new age limits has been published by Swedish
authorities.
2
Only three surveys were conducted in 1961. Therefore, the
average figures for the three surveys have been adjusted slightly
(based on ratios obtained from the 1962 surveys) to compensate
for the missing February data.

3 Labor force age 14 and above minus labor force age 16 to 74
and labor force age 14 and 15 for 1961-69; figures on persons
75 years old and over were published in special tabulations for 1970
and 1971. The 1971 figure is being used for 1972 and later years
until special tabulations for those years become available.
Reported unemployment age 16 to 74 as percent of adjusted
civilian labor force. The number of unemployed persons age 75 and
over is negligible.

multiplicative version of the SA-4 program of the Swedish
Institute of Economic Research. This series is published in
the SCR monthly, Arbetskraftsundersokningen. The SCB
revises its seasonally adjusted series when full-year data are
available.

Labor force, Swedish labor force data require a small ad­
justment for comparability to U.S. definitions. The ratio
of annual average labor force adjusted to U.S. concepts to
annual average “as published” labor force is applied to
seasonally adjusted monthly labor force data. The SCB does




139

not publish a seasonally adjusted labor force series; there­
fore, BLS seasonally adjusts the Swedish labor force using
the multiplicative version of the U.S. Bureau of the Census
X -ll Variant, Method II, seasonal adjustment program.




The previous year’s seasonal factors are applied to current
data until the full year’s experience can be incorporated
into the seasonal adjustment program.

140

English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

1.

Did you do any paid work last week?
(week.................i. e................................. ) ?

2.

We will include paid work and work in your own business (farmers
included) or freelance work, even if it did not take more than an hour.
Did you do any work of this kind last week (..................................)?

3.

How did you spend most of last week? Were you running your own
home (studying) or doing something else ?
AH
ST
O

FR
SO
VPL
IA
LS

Running your own home
Studying
Miscellaneous
Temporarily absent from work
Looking for work
Military service
Admitted for institutional treatment
Chronically ill or an invalid

4.

Has any member of your family (Has your husband or any other
member of your family) whom you live with a business of his/her
own (including a farm) or a freelance type of job?

5.

Did you do any work in his/her business last week (......................... )
without being paid money for it?




141

English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

6.

How many hours did you work last week (........................................ )?
Include any overtime, as well as extra work or an extra job.

7.

Are you employed even though you did not do any paid work last week?
Or are you self-employed (including farmers) or a freelance?

8.

Were you looking for work last week (................................................
..................... )?

9.

Why were you away from work last week (........................................)?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

10.

=
=
=
=
=
=

ill
on holiday
on military service
industrial dispute
leave of absence or some other reason
temporarily laid off without pay
waiting to start a new job within 30 days

In what way did you look for work?
Af
Ag
An
O

=
=
=
=

Employment Service
employer
advertisement (s)
some other way (s)

11.

How many weeks have you been looking for work (or laid off)?

12.

Do you belong to an approved unemployment benefit society?

13A. Who was your main employer last week
(when you were last employed)?
13B. Is the firm a limited company?



142

English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

14.

What is the main line of business (production) of the firm (work-place)?

15A. What was your main work last week (when you were last employed) ?
15B. In what occupation would you class this work?
16.

Last week (when you were last employed), did you work as ...
1.
2.
3.

a self-employed person
an employee
a member of the family, helping without being paid money

17.

Did you have any employees?

18.

Were you employed by
3.
4.
5.

state/national authorities
municipal/local authorities or
a private employer?

19.

Last week, then, you worked fo r ...................hours.
Would you have liked more work?

20.

Could you have taken on more work last week?

21.

How many hours would you have liked to have worked altogether
last week (........................................................ )?

22.

How many hours do you normally put in every week at your job
(IF MORE THAN ONE/OM FLERA: at your jobs)?

23.

Why did you work less than 35 hours last week?

24.

Why do you usually work less than 35 hours per week?




143

English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

25.

Why did you work less than 35 hours last week and not any other week?
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11

Not enough work to be had, factory/machinery being repaired,
shortage of materials, production reduced
Busy looking after the home and family
111 myself
Studying
Full working week less than 35 hours
Leave of absence or some other reason
Do not want to work full time
Left a job or started a new one during the week
On holiday
Bad weather
Industrial dispute

26.

How many hours do you normally put in every week at your job
(IF MORE THAN ONE/OM FLERA: at your jobs)?

27.

Why do you usually work less than 35 hours per week?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Not enough work to be had, factory/machinery being repaired,
shortage of materials, production reduced
Busy looking after the home and family
Ill myself
Studying
Full working week less than 35 hours
Other reason(s)
Do not want to work full time

28.

Would you have liked to have had work last week (..............................)?

29.

Could you have taken on work last week, or were you prevented
from doing so?




144

English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

30.

What was your main reason for not being gainfully employed last
week or for not applying for gainful employment?
1
2
3

31.

No suitable job opportunities in the area
Person interviewed rates his/her chances of obtaining
employment as small
Other reason(s)

What was your main reason for being unable to take on work last week?
4
5
6
7
8

Nobody to look after thechildren
Too busy with housework and/or with nursing in the family
Busy studying
111 or temporarily admitted for institutional care
Other reason(s)

32.

How many hours would you have liked to have worked last week?

33.

Have you ever applied for work, and if so, when?

34.

When did you last apply for work?

35.

How many hours would you have liked to have worked last week?

37.

One can start looking for a job immediately after leaving another job,
or one may wish to start working again after a period without work.
- How did you start to look for work? "Immediately" here means
not more than one month?




145

English Translation of Swedish Labor Force Survey Questionnaire

38.

Did you leave your job in connection with personnel or production
cuts, because the work you were engaged for was completed or for
some other reason?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Personnel or production cut
Work completed
Reasons of health (including early retirement)
Child care, housework
Studies
Retirement
Removal to another area
Other reason(s)

39.

What is your marital status?
1 Married
2
Unmarried
3 Formerly married (widow, widower, divorced)

40.

Have you any children living at home who are under 17?
a. How many?
b. How old are they?

A. We shall be coming back for an interview in .............(month). Can we then
a. get in touch with you via the same telephone number?
(IF YOUR PHONE NUMBER WILL BE DIFFERENT/OM NYTT
TELEFON NUMMER):
Will you also be changing your address ?
What will your new address be?
b. get in touch with you by phone?
(IF SO/OM JA):
What will your phone number be?
Will you still have the same address in ...........(month)?
(IF NOT/OM NEJ):
What will your new address be?
B. When do you think we will be likeliest to find you at home?



146

Appendix C. Methods of Adjustment by Age and Sex

The adjusted unemployment rates by age and sex
(chapter 3) are less reliable than the overall adjusted unem­
ployment rates. Whereas adjustments made to the overall
unemployment rates were based on published statistics gen­
erally available each year, adjustments by age and sex were
often partially estimated on the basis of data for years
other than those studied. For example, career military per­
sonnel and unpaid family workers working less than 15
hours a week had to be excluded from the labor force in
most countries for comparability with U.S. data. Such ad­
justments by age group for France and Italy were based on
age distributions from the 1960 labor force survey coordi­
nated by the Statistical Office of the European Communi­
ties. (See appendix E.) For Japan, age distributions of career
military personnel were taken from the 1965 census.
The following sections present descriptions of the
methods of deriving comparative data by age and sex in the
nine countries studied.1 Since the methods used in 1968,
1970, and 1974-76 were identical, tables are shown only
for the 1968 adjustments (1971 for Great Britain).

Japan

The reported Japanese labor force includes career
military personnel and unpaid family workers working less
than 15 hours. The age distribution of the career military
labor force was based on the 1965 census age distribution
of protective service workers, of which the national defense
force is a part. The age and sex distribution of unpaid family
workers working less than 15 hours was based on the ratios
for all unpaid family workers. The published unemployed
figures do not require adjustment. The adjusted unemploy­
ment rates by age and sex for Japan are virtually the same
as the rates based on published data (table C-l).
France

Both the labor force and the number unemployed
require adjustment to U.S. concepts (table C-2). The re­
ported labor force in the French labor force surveys in­
cludes career military and military contingents. Separate
totals for these groups are shown by sex in the survey but
are not broken down by age, Age distributions, therefore,
were assumed to be the same as in the 1960 survey coordi­
nated by the Statistical Office of the European Communi­
ties. A further adjustment needs to be made to include per­
sons living in collective households, such as hotels, which
are not within the scope of the survey. (See appendix B.)
Such persons are assumed to be employed and to have the
same age distribution as the surveyed labor force. After sub­
tracting career military and military contingents and adding
an estimate of the civilian labor force not covered by the
surveys, the resulting civilian labor force is not entirely
compatible with U.S. concepts because it includes unpaid
family workers not at work or working less than 15 hours
during the week, persons reporting themselves as employed
but who were not at work because of “durable reasons”
(personal convenience or the nature of the job), unemployed
persons who had not commenced seeking work or are not
currently available for work, and 15-year-olds. Data are
available by sex for all of the above items except persons
not currently available for work. Such persons were dis­
tributed by sex according to the same proportions as un­
employed persons who had not commenced seeking work.
Data by age are not separately available for any of these
items except 15-year-olds. Therefore, adjustment by age
for the other items is made by dividing each age-sex group
of the reported civilian labor force by the overall male and

Canada

Prior to the 1976 revision in the Canadian survey,
data were published with a lower age limit of 14. Separate
data were published on 14-year-olds, however, and they
have been excluded. The figures for 1968 and 1970 from
the old Canadian survey significantly understated female
unemployment and overstated male unemployment. Sta­
tistics Canada prepared a revised series for 1968 and 1970,
but did not show all detailed age breakdowns. For 1974,
figures for all age groups adjusted to the new survey con­
cepts, which are comparable with U.S. statistics, were
available. For comparison, 1968, 1970, and 1974 figures
based on both the old and new surveys are shown.
Australia

No adjustments were made for Australia, since the
regularly published data are regarded as comparable with
U.S. statistics.
1See appendix B for detailed descriptions of the methods used
to adjust each country’s overall unemployment rate to U.S. con­
cepts, This appendix relates to additional estimates that have been
made to derive unemployment rates by age and sex.



147

Table C-1. Japan: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and sex, 1968
(N u m b e rs in tho usands)

Total
15 to 19
years

20 to 24
years

50,610
240

3,960

7,230
40

32,060
160

7,360

20

690
49,680

40
3,900

60
7,130

450
31,450

130
7,210

M a l e .........................................................
Less: Career military personnel1 . .
Less: Unpaid family workers
working less than 15 hours2 . .
Adjusted civilian labor force . . .

30,580
240

1,980

3,910
40

19,900
160

4,790

120

20

20

30,220

1,940

3,850

60
19,680

4,760

F em ale......................................................
Less: Unpaid family workers
working less than 15 hours2 . .
Adjusted civilian labor force . . . .

20,030

1,990

3,320

12,140

2,580

560
19,470

20
1,970

40
3,280

390
11,750

2,470

590
370
230

90
50
40

130
70
60

300
190

90
70

110

20

1.2
1.2
1.2

2.3

1.8
1.8
1.8

1.0
1.0

1.5

.9

.8

1.2
1.2
1.1

2.3
2.5

Employment status

15 years
and over

25 to 54
years

55 years
and over

Labor force
Both sexes................................................
Less: Career military personnel1
Less: Unpaid family workers
working less than 15 hours2 . .
Adjusted civilian labor force . . . .

20

20

20
10

110

Unemployed
Both sexes................................................
M a l e .........................................................
F em ale......................................................

Unemployment rate (percent)
Adjusted to U.S. concepts:
Both s e x e s .........................................
M a le ......................................................
F e m a le ................................................
As published:
Both s e x e s .........................................
M a le ......................................................
F e m a le ......................................... ... .

2.6
2.0

2.0

1.8
1.8
1.8

1.2

.9

1.2

1.0

1.5

.9

.8

Annual Report on the Labour Force Survey,

1 Age distribution of career military personnel based on 1965
census age distribution of protective service workers.
Based on age distribution of all unpaid family workers.

SOURCE:
1975
(Tokyo, Office of the Prime Minister, Bureau of Statistics) and
BLS adjustments.

NOTE: Because of rounding, subtotals may not add to totals.

employed in each age-sex group by the overall male and
female ratios of reported to adjusted unemployed 16 years
of age and over.
The resulting adjusted unemployment rates for males
are only slightly lower than the figures based on the re­
ported survey data. For females, however, the downward
adjustment is considerable. This is because reported female
unemployment contains a high proportion of the number
of persons who had not yet commenced seeking work or
were not currently available for work (table C-2).

female ratios of reported to adjusted civilian labor force 16
years of age and over.
The reported unemployment figures for France inclucie
persons who did some work but were looking for other jobs
in the survey week, persons who had not begun to seek
work or were not currently available for work, and 15-yearolds. These persons should be excluded for comparability
with U.S. concepts. On the other hand, the French unem­
ployed count does not include persons who stated they
were employed but who did no work at all during the sur­
vey week because of partial unemployment or slack work
or because they were either waiting to start a new job or
left their previous employment. Such persons should be
included for comparability with U.S. concepts. Breakdowns
by age are not available for the above items; however, sex
breakdowns are available except for those persons not
currently available for work, discussed above. The number
of unemployed 15-year-olds is estimated by assuming they
have the same unemployment rate as all teenagers 15 to
19 years of age. Adjustments by age for the other differ­
ences are then made by dividing the reported number un­



Germany

The German labor force as reported in the April
Microcensus includes career military personnel, unpaid
family workers working less than 15 hours, and 14-yearolds. These groups must be excluded for comparability
with U.S. statistics. All career military personnel in Ger­
many are males and their age distribution can be deter­
mined from published age distributions of the labor force
including and excluding the career military. Thehiumber of

148

Table C-2. France: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and sex, IVIarch 1968
(N u m b e rs in tho usands)

!
i

Total
Employment status

15 years
and over

16 years
and over

Both sexes................................................
Less: Career military personnel1 . .
Plus: Labor force not surveyed2 . .
Civilian labor fo r c e ................................
Adjusted to U.S. concepts3 .............

21,069
265
500
21,304
20,958

Male .........................................................
Less: Career military personnel1 . .
Plus: Labor force not surveyed2 . .
Civilian labor fo r c e ................................
Adjusted to U.S. concepts3 .............
Fem ale......................................................
Less: Career military personnel1 . .
Plus: Labor force not surveyed2 . .
Civilian labor fo r c e ................................
Adjusted to U.S. concepts 3.............

j

16 to 13
years

20 to 24
years

25 to 54
years

20,972
265
500
21,207
20,861

1,559

2,516

1

20

30
1,588
1,560

67
2,563
2,513

12,845
231
312
12,926
12,728

4,052
13
90
4,129
4,061

13,133
228
310
13,215
13,137

13,064
228
310
13,146
13,068

867

8,433

2,486

201

10

17
883
878

1,279
16
34
1,297
1,289

203
8,435
8,385

55
2,531
2,516

7,937
37
190
8,090
7,822

7,909
37
190
8,062
7,794

692
—
13
705
682

1,237
4
33
1,266
1,224

4,413
30
109
4,492
4,343

1,566
3
35
1,598
1,545

Both sexes ...............................................
Adjusted to U.S. concepts4 .............

656
530

648
523

141
114

111
88

294
233

103

M a l e .........................................................
Adjusted to U.S. concepts4 .............

269
250

265
246

60
56

41
38

105
97

58
54

Fem ale......................................................
Adjusted to U.S. concepts4 . . . . .

387
280

385
277

81
58

70
50

189
136

45
32

2.5
1.9
3.6

2.5
1.9
3.6

7.3
6.4
8.5

3.5
2.9
4.1

1.8
1.2

2.1
2.1
2.1

3.1

3.1

2.1

2.0

4.9

4.9

9.0
6.9
11.7

4.4
3.2
5.7

65 years
arid over

Labor force

1

Unemployed

86

Unemployment rate (percent)
Adjusted to U.S. concepts:
Both s e x e s .........................................
M a l e ......................................................
Fem ale...................................................
As published:
Both s e x e s .........................................
M a l e ...................................................1
Fem ale...............................................

*Age distribution based on figures from 1960 EEC labor force
survey.
Age distribution based on proportions from surveyed labor force
by age.
3Adjusted to exclude unpaid family workers not at work or
working less than 15 hours; employed persons not at work for "dur­
able" reasons; and unemployed persons who have not commenced
seeking work or are not currently available for work. Figures on
these exclusions are available in total and by sex, but not by age.
Therefore, the adjusted figures by age group are derived by dividing
each age-sex group of civilian labor force by the overall male and
female ratios of reported to adjusted civilian labor force for 16-yearolds and over (male: 100.60; female: 103.44).
4
Adjusted to exclude persons classified as unemployed who

2

unpaid family workers working less than 15 hours is pub­
lished by sex. No age distributions are published, however.
Therefore, it was assumed that the age distribution of un­
paid family workers who worked less than 15 hours was the
same as that for all unpaid family workers. Separate data
on 14-year-olds by sex are available from the Microcensus
results.
Microcensus unemployment is adjusted only to ex­



149

3.1
2.3

1.2
4.3

2.5
2.3
2.9

worked during the survey week, had not commenced seeking work,
or were not currently available for work, and to include persons
classified as employed who were not at work owing to the start or
cessation of a job or slack work. Figures for these adjustments are
available in total and by sex, but not by age. Therefore, the adjusted
figures by age group are derived by dividing the reported number
unemployed in each age-sex group by the overall male and female
ratios of reported to adjusted unemployed age 16 and over (male:
107.72; female: 138.99).

Enquetes Sur L'Emploi de 1968 et 1969, Resultats

SOURCE:
(Paris, lnstitut National de la Statistique et des Etudes
Economiques) and BLS adjustments.

detailles

clude 14-year-olds. The distribution of unemployed by age
was not published as such by Germany in 1968, but can
be derived by subtracting data on the employed by age
and sex from data on the labor force by age and sex. The
number of 14-year-olds in the unemployed count is ob­
tained in this manner. Unemployment has been reported
by age in more recent years,

The resulting adjusted unemployment rates for Ger­
many by age and sex are identical to or only one-tenth of
a percentage point higher than the rates based on the pub­
lished data (table C-3).

Britain. The method of adjustment of the British data by
age and sex is based, therefore, on the General Household
Surveys (GHS) which cover the labor force groups generally
excluded from registration statistics.
Figures on the labor force and unemployed were re­
ported by age and sex in the 1971 GHS, but were not in­
flated to universe levels—i.e., levels representing the entire
country. In table C-4, all data shown are representative of
the entire country. Reported figures on employees, selfemployed, and registered unemployed have been aug­
mented by adding the estimated number of unregistered un­
employed. An estimate of the overcount in the reported
figures on employees has been subtracted. (See appendix B
for details.) The resulting adjusted civilian labor force,
broken down into its male and female components, was
then distributed by age according to the age-sex distribu­
tion of the civilian labor force (unadjusted to U.S. con­
cepts) from the 1971 GHS. The GHS did not report data
for the age groups 15-19 and 20-24; instead, figures for age

Great Britain

Adjusted figures by age and sex for Great Britain
could be reliably prepared for 1971, the year of the first
General Household Survey, and later years. The regularly
published British data are from registered unemployment
statistics rather than a labor force survey. Data on registered
unemployed persons are particularly weak for comparisons
of youth unemployment, since a high proportion of unem­
ployed youths are new entrants to the labor force. Such
persons are generally not eligible to collect unemployment
benefits and are, therefore, much less likely to register with
employment offices than the experienced unemployed.
Many unemployed women also do not register in Great

Table C-3. Germany: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and sex, April 1968
(N u m b e rs in thousands)

Total
Employment status

14 years
and over

15 years
and over

15 to 19
years

20 to 24
years

26,719
485

2,487
32

2,705
169

16,343
282

25 to 54
years

55 years
and over

Labor force
Both sexes................................................
Less: Career military personnel1
Less: Unpaid family workers
working less than 15 hours2
Adjusted civilian labor force . . . .

26,766
485

5,186

2

68

68

26,213

26,166

4
2,451

3
2,533

40
16,021

Male . . ...................................................
Less. Career military personnel1
Less: Unpaid family workers
working less than 15 hours2 . .
Adjusted civilian labor force . . . .

17,157
485

17,131
485

1,309
32

1,556
169

10,795
282

3,4 72

11

11

2

1

16,661

16,635

1,275

1,386

4
10,509

4
3,466

F em ale......................................................
Less unpaid family workers
working less than 15 hours2 . .
Adjusted civilian labor force . . .

9,609

9,588

1,178

1,149

5,548

1,715

57
9,552

57
9,531

2

2

1,176

1,147

36
5,512

18
1,697

412
229
183

382
213
169

94
47
47

36
18
18

171
92
79

81
56
25

1.6

1.5
1.3

3.8
3.7
4.0

1.4
1.3

1.1

1.6
1.6

1.6

.9
1.4

3.8
3.6
4.0

1.3

1.0

1.2
1.6

.9
1.4

22
5,162

2

Unemployed
Both sexes................................................
M a l e ................................... ......................
F em ale......................................................
Unemployment rate (percent)
Adjusted to U.S. concepts:
Both s e x e s .........................................
M a le ................................................
F e m a le ................... ...
As published:
Both sexes ................................ ...
M a le ......................................................
F e m a le ................................ ...

1.4
1.9

1.5
1.3
19

1.8
1.4

1.2
1.8

1 Age distribution derived from age distributions of labor force
induding and excluding career military personnel.
* Based on age-sex distribution of all unpaid family workers in
April 1968.

1.6
1.6
1.5

SOURCE: Hauptergebnisse der Arbeits-und Sozialstatistik 1968
(Bonn, Der Bundesminister Fur Arbeit und Sozialordnung), Statis
tiches Jahrbuch fur Die Bundesrepubiic Deutschland 1969 (Wies­
baden, Statisches Bundesamt, July 1969), and BLS adjustments.

-

NOTE: Because of bounding, subtotals may not add to totals.




1.5

150

Table C~4. Great Britain: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and sex, 1971
(N u m b e rs in thousands)
E m p lo y m e n t status

T o ta l
1 5 years
an d over

15 to 19
years

2 0 to 2 4
years

2 5 to 5 4
years

5 5 years
and over

__

Labor force
B o th sexes:
E m p lo y ees in e m p lo y m e n t ...............
Plus: S e lf e m p l o y e d ......................
Plus: R egistered u n e m p lo y e d 1 .

2 1 ,5 5 4
1 ,8 4 8

—

—

—
—

—

758

Less: N e t o v e r c o u n t ......................
Plus: U nreg iste red u n e m p lo y e d .
A d ju s te d c iv ilia n lab or fo rc e 2 . . .

295
157

—

—

—

—

Rounded

............................................

M ale:
E m p lo y e e s in e m p lo y m e n t ...............
Plus: S e lf e m p l o y e d ......................
Plus: R egistered u n e m p lo y e d 1 .
Less: N e t o v e r c o u n t ......................
Plus: U nreg iste red u n e m p lo y e d .
A d ju s te d c iv ilia n lab o r fo rc e 2 . . .

2 ,2 7 6

2 ,7 3 1

2 4 ,0 2 0

2 ,2 8 0

2 ,7 3 0

—
—

—
—

—
—

1 3 ,3 7 6
1 ,4 7 7
640
254

—

-6 3
1 5 ,1 7 6

1 ,2 1 4

............................................

1 5 ,1 8 0

1 ,2 1 0

E m p lo y e e s in e m p lo y m e n t ...............

8 ,1 7 8
371

Rounded

-

2 4 ,0 2 2

1 ,6 6 9
1 ,6 7 0

1 4 ,4 7 7
1 4 ,4 8 0

—
—
__
—
—

4 ,5 3 9
4 ,5 4 0

_
—
—
-

9 ,2 5 7

3 ,0 3 5

9 ,2 6 0

3 ,0 4 0

Fe m a le:
Plus: S e lf e m p l o y e d ......................
Plus: R egistered u n e m p lo y e d 1 .

—

—

_

—
-

119
41

-

-

-

Less: N e t o v e r c o u n t ......................

—

—

—

—

Plus: U n reg iste red u n e m p lo y e d .
A d ju s te d c iv ilia n la b o r fo rc e 2 . . . .
R o u n d e d ................................................

220
8 ,8 4 7
8 ,8 5 0

-

-

-

-

1 ,0 6 2
1 ,0 6 0

1 ,0 6 2
1 ,0 6 0

5 ,2 2 0
5 ,2 2 0

1 ,5 0 4
1 ,5 0 0

Unemployed
B o th sexes:
R eg istered u n e m p lo y e d 1 ..................
Plus: T e m p o r a r ily laid o f f ..................

758
11

Plus: U n reg iste red u n e m p lo y e d . .
A d ju s te d u n e m p lo y e d 2 .............................
R o u n d e d ...................................................

15 7
926
930

—

—

—

—

—

—

—
—

—
—

478
480

160
160

—
—
—

—

156
160

130

133

—

—

M ale:
R eg istered u n e m p lo y e d 1 ...................
Plus: T e m p o r a r ily laid o f f . . . .
Plus: U nreg iste red u n e m p lo y e d .
A d ju s te d u n e m p lo y e d 2 . ...................
R o u n d e d ................................................

-

—

—
__

587
590

90

82
80

288
290

129
130

119

-

—
—
—

—
—

70

—
—
51
50

190
190

31
30

7 .0
7 .4

4 .8

3.3
3.1

3 .5
4 .3

4 .7

3 .6

2 .0

640
10
-6 3

88

F e m a le:
R egistered u n e m p lo y e d 1 ..................
Plus: T e m p o r a r ily laid o f f . . . .
Plus: U nreg iste red u n e m p lo y e d .
A d ju s te d u n e m p lo y e d 2 ......................
R o u n d e d ................................................

1
220
340
340

—
—

68

—

Unemployment rate (percent)
A d ju s te d to U .S . concepts:
Both s e x e s ................................................... ...
M a l e .............................................................. .\
F e m a le .................. ...........................................

3 .9

3.9
3 .8

6.6

The General Household Survey: Introductory Report

1 Includes adult students.
2 Distributed by age according to the 1971 General Household
Survey. Data for 15- to 19-year-olds and 20- to 24-year-olds were
estimated by utilizing the 1971 Population Census. The GHS re­

SOURCE:
(London, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Social Survey
Division) and BLS adjustments,

ported data for 15- to 17-year-olds and 18- to 24-year-olds.




4.8

151

groups 15-17 and 18-24 were reported. The number of 18and 19-year-olds in the 18-24 category was estimated by
utilizing proportions of the labor force by age and sex
from the 1971 population census. For 1973 and 1974, no
breakdown of the 16-24 age group was made because of the
lack of relevant data. It should be noted that the lower age
limit for British statistics was raised from 15 to 16 in 1973.
The registered unemployed figures were adjusted to
U.S. concepts by sex by adding the unregistered unemployed
and persons on temporary layoff. The resulting figures, by
sex, were then distributed by age according to the age-sex
distribution of the unemployed (unadjusted to U.S. con­
cepts) from the 1971 GHS, supplemented by the 1971
population census. Data on unemployment by age and sex
as measured by the population census (persons “out of
employment”) were used to estimate the number of un­
employed 18- and 19-year-olds in the 18-24 age group
(table C-4).

age and sex breakdowns were shown for Italy in chapter 3.
It is not known how well these published breakdowns
approximate U.S. concepts. The figures exclude persons
who were actively seeking work but who did not report
themselves as unemployed. On the other hand, they include
a large number of persons who took no active steps to find
work in the past 30 days.
Sweden

The reported Swedish labor force includes career
military personnel. In addition, in 1968 the labor force
included 14- and 15-year-olds; in 1970 and subsequent
years 14- and 15-year-olds were excluded but persons 75
years old and over were also excluded. The age distribution
of the career military was based on a special survey con­
ducted in Sweden in February 1964. Data on 14- and
15-year-olds for 1968 were provided by the National Cen­
tral Bureau of Statistics in unpublished tabulations. For
those 75 years old and over, figures are published once a
year in the labor force survey. The Swedish unemployed
figures require only the age adjustments discussed above.
The resulting adjusted unemployment rates by age and sex
are virtually the same as the published rates (table C-5).

Italy

Italian labor force data by age and sex could not be
reliably adjusted to U.S. concepts. Therefore, only published

Table C-5. Sweden: Labor force and unemployment adjusted to U.S. concepts, by age and sex, 1968
(N u m b e rs in thousands)
T o ta l
16 years
and over

B o th s e x e s ................................................
Less: C areer m ilita ry p e rs o n n e l1
A d ju s te d c iv ilia n lab o r fo rc e . .

3 ,8 6 8
18
3 ,8 5 0

M a l e ..............................................................
Less: C areer m ilita ry p e rs o n n e l1
A d ju s te d c iv ilia n la b o r fo rc e . .
F e m a l e .......................................................

2 ,3 9 9
18

3 ,8 4 0
18
3 ,8 2 2
2 ,3 8 2

16 to 19
years

2 0 to 2 4

2 5 to 5 4

years

years

251
2
249
130
2
128
121

14 years
and over

E m p lo y m e n t status

469
6
463
264

5 5 years
and over

L a b o r fo rc e

2 ,3 8 1
1 ,4 6 9

18
2 ,3 6 3
1 ,4 5 8

6
258
205

2 ,3 3 0
10
2 ,3 2 0

1 ,4 3 6
884

791
0
791
542
0
542
249

1 ,4 4 6
10

U n e m p lo y e d
86
54

85
54

14

14

40

17

M a l e ....................................................... ... .

7

8

14

F e m a l e .......................................................

32

31

8

6

26
14

2 .2
2 .3

2 .2
2 .3

5 .6
5 .5

3 .0
3.1

1,7

2.1

M a l e ................................................... ...

1.8

2 .6

F e m a l e ........................................

2 .2

2.1

6 .6

2 .9

1 .6

1 .2

2 .2
2 .3

2 .2
2 .2

5 .6
5 .4

3 .0
3 .0

1.7
1.7

2 .2

2.1

6 .6

2 .9

1 .6

2,1
2 .6
1 .2

B o th s e x e s ................................................

3

U n e m p lo y m e n t rate (p e rc e n t)
A d ju s te d to U .S . concepts:
B o th sexes

................................................

As pu blis hed :
B o th s e x e s ................................................
M a l e .................. ... ........................................
F e m a l e .......................................................

1 Age d is trib u tio n based on special survey c o n d u c te d in F e b ru a ry
1964.




SOURCE:

The Labour Force Surveys, 1961-69 (S to c k h o lm , N a -

tio n a ! C en tra l B ureau o f S tatistic s) and BUS a d ju s tm e n ts .

152

Appendix D. Calculation of Labor Force Participation Rates
and Employment-Population Ratios

Participation rates

Labor force participation rates as shown in chapter 4 of this bulletin are defined as the proportion of the
civilian population of working age that is in the labor force.
The labor force used in these calculations is the civilian
labor force adjusted to U.S. concepts. Since participation
rates by sex were also needed, the adjusted labor force had
to be broken down into its male and female components.
This was done according to the procedures described in
appendix C on methods of adjustment by age and sex, ex­
cept for Germany and Great Britain.
For Germany, age-sex adjustments, as described in
appendix C, were made to the April or May Microcensus
figures. The 1960-76 participation rate data, however, are
annual averages derived from annual estimates of the labor
force by sex. These figures are adjusted to U.S. concepts
on the basis of the Microcensus.
In the age-sex adjustment section for Great Britain,
only data from the British General Household Survey
which began in 1971 were considered. However, since par­
ticipation rates were required for the entire 1960-76 period,
the 1971 survey was inadequate. Instead, figures on the
labor force by sex were adjusted to U.S. concepts by first
obtaining the published British figures, subtracting an esti­
mated overcount, and adding the unregistered unemployed.
These adjustments are described in detail in the methods
section for Great Britain (appendix B). The overcount fac­
tor and the unregistered unemployed are originally derived
by sex, as explained in the methods section.




The population base for the participation rate calcu­
lations is defined as the civilian population of working age.
Such data are usually reported in labor force surveys. For
most countries, the Armed Forces had to be excluded from
the regularly published population figures. Working age was
defined so as to cover the same ages as the adjusted labor
force figures-e.g., persons age 16 and over in the United
States; age 15 and over in Germany, etc. Where population
figures were not available on this basis, estimates of working
age population had to be made. For Italy, working age
population data were not reported in the labor force survey.
Therefore, estimates of mid-year population as reported
to the OECD were used. The Armed Forces were subtracted
from these figures so that they would relate to the civilian
population. OECD population estimates were also used for
Germany, since annual rather than April data were used for
the labor force.
Employment-population ratios

The employment-population ratios shown in chap­
ter 4 were obtained by dividing civilian employment by
the civilian population of working age. Civilian employment
adjusted to U.S. concepts was obtained by subtracting the
adjusted unemployed from the adjusted labor force for
each year. The civilian population of working age was ob­
tained in the same way as for the participation rates de­
scribed above. No breakdowns of employment ratios by
sex were made.

153

Appendix E. European Community Labor Force Surveys

The Statistical Office of the European Communities
has been working to promote comparability of employment
and unemployment statistics among member countries. In
October 1960, labor force surveys using common defini­
tions were conducted in each of the six member countries—
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the
Netherlands.1 The surveys were repeated annually from
1968 to 1971, but not all Community countries partici­
pated; Luxembourg did not take part in the 1968 survey,
and the Netherlands did not participate in the three follow­
ing surveys. The 1968 to 1971 surveys were conducted in
the spring.
The survey was conducted again in the spring of 1973
in the six original member countries and in the United
Kingdom. In 1975, all member countries took part, includ­
ing Ireland and Denmark. The survey was again conducted
in 1977 and will henceforth be conducted every two years.
Collection of data

For the 1960 and each subsequent survey, a standard
questionnaire and rules to be followed in collecting the data
were drawn up by the Statistical Office of the European
Communities. The sampling and visits to households were
carried out by the national statistical institutes who were
also responsible for sending the results to the Statistical
Office. The Statistical Office handled all the processing of
data.
Scope of survey

The survey covers all persons whose place of resi­
dence is in one of the member states of the Community
during the reference week. For technical reasons, it was not
1Survey results may be found in the following publications of
the Statistical Office of the European Communities: Une enquete
par sondage sur les forces de travail dans les pays de le CEE en 1960,
Informations Statistiques 1963, Number 2; Population et forces de
travail en 1968, Statistiques Sociales 1969, Number 6; Population
et forces de travail en 1969, Statistiques Sociales 1970, Number 4;
Enquete par sondage sur les forces de travail en 1970, Statistiques
Sociales 1971, Number 2; Enquete par sondage sur les forces de tra­
vail en 1971, Statistiques Sociales 1972, Number 3;Population and
Employment, 1968-1972, Social Statistics 1973, Number 2; Labour
Force Sample Survey 1973, Social Statistics 1975, Number 1; and
Labour Force Sample Survey 1975, Eurostat, 1977. Beginning with
the publication Population and Employment, 1968-72 the descrip­
tions and table headings appear in English as well as the other
languages of the Community.



possible to include collective households such as hostels,
boarding schools, hospitals, or workers’ lodgings in all coun­
tries. Therefore, the survey has been limited to private
households. Members of private households make up about
97 percent of the total population of the Community.
The 1960 survey was based on a sample of 1 percent;
for the subsequent surveys, the sample size varied each year
according to country (for example, 1968,0.5 percent in the
Netherlands and Belgium; 1 percent in Germany).
Comparability of historical series

According to the EC Statistical Office, a comparison
of the results of the 1960, 1968-71, 1973, and 1975 sur­
veys must be made with caution. Random errors are a fea­
ture of all sample surveys and can, in certain cases, exceed
the magnitude of the variations from one year to another.
Also, although these surveys were synchronized in that
they all took place in the spring of each year (except in
1960), they were carried out over different periods in
the different countries and were spread over several weeks
in some countries. Finally, it has been necessary to revise
figures for various reasons after publication of the first re­
sults. Thus, the final French results for 1968 have been
published along with the 1969 results and the 1969 figures
for Belgium have been revised in the 1970 publication.
The results of the 1960 survey, as published in 1963,
cannot be considered comparable with those of the sub­
sequent surveys. Nevertheless, the Statistical Office has
attempted to bring the different surveys into line as far as
possible by using unpublished working documents in Num­
ber 2/1973 of the Social Statistics series.
Following certain improvements introduced in the
1973 survey, notably concerning the distinction between
the “usual” situation with regard to economic activity and
the actual situation in the reference week, strict compari­
sons between the 1973 and 1975 results and those of pre­
vious surveys are not always possible.
Definitions of the labor force

The definitions used in the European Community sur­
veys are essentially based on ILO definitions. However, a
rigorous application of the international definitions was not
possible because of the necessity of avoiding too detailed a
survey requiring complicated computer calculations.

154

The use of definitions common to all the Community
countries means that the results may not be the same as
those used nationally. As the Statistical Office tries to
achieve comparable results, these results do not always
agree with data from the same surveys processed according
to national definitions.
The labor force in the Community surveys is defined
as all persons age 14 and over whose normal residence is
in a private household in one of the Community countries
participating in the survey and who, during the reference
week, was employed or unemployed according to the fol­
lowing definitions.
Employed. Employed persons comprise all persons age 14
or over who:
1. Have carried out remunerative work as their main oc­
cupation during the reference week;
2. are normally employed, but who, during the course
of the reference week, were not at work because of
illness, accident, holiday, strike, or other circum­
stances. People who have not worked because of tech­
nical breakdowns or bad weather are also included in
this group.
3. carry out unpaid work assisting in a family business
or farm as long as this work occupies more than 14
hours per week.
Specifically excluded from the employed are:
1. Persons who temporarily or for an unlimited period
have no work and are not paid during the reference
week;
2. persons without paid employment and who have
neither a farm nor any other business, but who have
taken steps to start a new job, farm, or business at a
later date;
3. unpaid family workers who have worked less than 15
hours in the reference week;
4. military conscripts (career military personnel are in­
cluded in the employed).
Unemployed. Unemployed persons comprise all those who
have declared themselves to be unemployed and who fall
into one of the following categories:1
3
2
1. Employable workers who were unemployed and seek­
ing paid work during the reference week because their
employment contract had come to an end or had
been temporarily suspended;
2. persons with no previous employment, or whose last
employment was not that of a paid worker (former
employers, etc.), or who had ceased working for a
period of time, and who, during the reference week,
were capable of working and seeking paid employ­
ment ;
3. persons without work and capable of working im­
mediately who had made arrangements to start a new
job at a later date;




155

4. people laid off temporarily or for an indefinite period
without pay.
Inactive population. This covers all persons who were under
14 years of age or who were 14 years old or older but could
not be considered either employed or unemployed under
the above definitions. The inactive population includes per­
sons who declare themselves to be unemployed, but who
are not seeking paid employment—for example, persons
making arrangements to set themselves up in business.
Family workers who have declared that they are em­
ployed but have only worked between 1 and 14 hours dur­
ing the reference week are also part of the inactive popula­
tion. Also, inactive persons can be in the process of seek­
ing employment (students looking for a first job, for ex­
ample) or have a part-time job (a housewife working for
other households, for example).
Differences between European Community and
U.S. definitions

The European Community surveys differ from the
U.S. labor force survey with respect to age limits, classi­
fication of military personnel, and with regard to the
“inactive population” as defined by the European Com­
munity. The EC surveys use a lower age limit of 14,
whereas the U.S. surveys use age 16 as the lower limit.
Career military personnel are included in the labor force
as defined by the EC and excluded in the United States.
Some persons in the EC’s “inactive population” would
be regarded as in the U.S. labor force, either as employed
or unemployed. Thus, persons who do not declare in the
EC survey that they have a “main occupation” or that
they are “unemployed” are not classified in the labor force
even if they are performing some part-time work or are seek­
ing work. This is similar to the procedure in the French
labor force survey in which work seekers are classified
as “unemployed” or “marginally unemployed.” The con­
cept of “marginally unemployed’" in the French survey
corresponds closely to the category “inactive workseekers”
in the EC survey.
European Community survey results

The EC surveys provide a wealth of comparative
data, including data on labor force, employment, and un­
employment by age and sex. Data on activity rates, parttime workers, sectoral employment, professional and terri­
torial mobility, hours of work, and methods and duration
of workseeking are included. There is also a great deal of
information broken down by region in each country. Table
E-l shows some of the data obtained from the 1973 labor
force survey.

Table E-1. Population of the European Community by type of activity, spring 1973
(Th ousands)

B elgium

T y p e o f a c tiv ity
1.

Persons w ith a j o b ...................... ...
W ith 2 or m o re jo b s ............... ... .
L o o k in g fo r a n o th e r jo b . . . .

2.

Fran ce

G e rm a n y

Ita ly

L u x e m b o u rg

N e th e rla n d s

U n ite d
K in g d o m

3 ,5 1 6
85
82

2 0 ,1 9 4

2 5 ,5 8 4

4 ,3 0 6

2 3 ,6 8 3

617
(M

1 7 ,0 1 9
461
817

134

(M
539

5
1

106
137

442
790

59
12

374
64

133

717
451

1

82
10

515

26

3 ,5 7 5

2 0 ,5 6 8

2 5 ,7 1 7

1 7 ,7 3 6

135

4 ,3 8 8

2 4 ,1 9 8

1 7 ,9 2 1
629

2 2 ,4 1 8
731

2 3 .8 4 9
1 ,1 4 9

146
3

5 ,3 4 0
315

1 8 ,2 0 9
384

84 1

1

Persons w h o have declared
them selves to be u n e m p lo y e d . .
L o o k in g fo r a firs t j o b ...............

3.

T o ta l lab or fo rc e (1 + 2 )

4.

In a c tiv e persons

. . . . .

(M

26

.............................

3 ,8 8 4

W ith an occasional jo b . . . . .
L o o k in g fo r a j o b ..........................

39
17

5.

Persons less th a n 14 years o ld . .

2 ,0 8 7

1 0 ,8 7 8

1 2 ,4 4 2

1 1 ,8 6 6

66

2 ,8 0 2

1 1 ,6 1 0

6.

T o ta l p o p u la tio n (3 + 4 + 5 )

9 ,5 4 6

4 9 ,3 6 6

6 0 ,5 7 7

5 3 ,4 5 1

347

1 2 ,5 3 0

5 4 ,0 1 7

. . . .

368

SOURCE:

^ N o t a v ailab le.




Statistical

394

Office of the European Communities,

Social Statistics, Number 1 ,1 9 7 5 .

156

65

Appendix F. Unemployment Rates on a Total Labor Force Basis
Table F-1. Total labor force (including Armed Forces) and unemployment rates, adjusted to U.S. concepts, 1959-76
U n ite d
States

Year

C anada

A u s tra lia

Japan

F ran ce

G e rm a n y

G re a t
B rita in

Ita ly

S w eden

------------- — ii_____ ________

T o ta i L a b o r F o rc e (T ho usa nds )
1959
1960
1 9 61
1962
1963
1964

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

1965 . . . .
1966 . . . .
1967 . . . .
1968
1969
1970
1971

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

1972 . . . .
1973 . . . .
1974 . . . .
1975 . . . .
1976 . . . .

7 0 ,9 2 1

6 ,3 3 4

(M

7 2 ,1 4 2
7 3 ,0 3 1

6 ,5 0 1
6 ,6 1 2
6 ,7 1 0
6 ,8 3 8
7 ,0 1 7

(M

7 3 ,4 4 2
7 4 ,5 7 1
7 5 ,8 3 0
7 7 ,1 7 8
7 8 ,8 9 3
8 0 ,7 9 3
8 2 ,2 7 2
8 4 ,2 3 9
8 5 ,9 0 3
8 6 ,9 2 9
8 8 ,9 9 1
9 1 ,0 4 0
9 3 ,2 4 0
9 4 ,7 9 3
9 6 ,9 1 7

7 ,2 1 7
7 ,6 0 1
7 ,8 5 4
8 ,0 5 2
8 ,2 9 2
8 ,4 9 1
8 ,7 3 2
9 ,0 0 4
9 ,4 0 4
9 ,7 8 7
1 0 ,1 3 9
1 0 ,3 8 8

(» )
(M
(M
4 ,6 1 1
4 ,7 4 5
4 ,9 0 1
5 ,0 3 5
5 ,1 5 1
5 ,2 9 7
5 ,4 6 5
5 ,5 6 9
5 ,6 7 0
5 ,7 9 6
5 ,9 3 7
6 ,0 5 5
6 ,1 4 0

4 3 ,5 3 0
4 4 ,3 3 0

1 9 ,8 9 0
1 9 ,9 2 0

4 4 ,8 2 0
4 5 ,2 6 0
4 5 ,6 4 0
4 6 ,2 6 0
4 7 ,0 0 0

1 9 ,8 9 0
1 9 ,9 6 0
2 0 ,0 3 0
2 0 ,3 0 0
2 0 ,3 2 0

4 8 ,0 8 0
4 9 ,0 4 0
4 9 ,9 2 0
5 0 ,3 8 0
5 0 ,9 7 0
5 1 ,3 5 0

2 0 ,5 6 0
2 0 ,6 6 0
2 0 ,9 5 0
2 1 ,2 2 0
2 1 ,5 4 0
2 1 ,7 7 0
2 1 ,9 9 0
2 2 ,2 1 0
2 2 ,5 5 0
2 2 ,6 2 0

5 1 ,5 5 0
5 2 ,8 2 0
5 2 ,6 8 0
5 2 ,7 7 0
5 3 ,3 4 0

2 2 ,7 6 0

2 6 ,0 8 0

2 3 ,7 8 0

2 2 ,1 6 0

(M

2 6 ,2 6 0
2 6 ,5 3 0
2 6 ,6 2 0
2 6 ,7 2 0
2 6 ,7 3 0
2 6 ,8 5 0

2 3 ,9 2 0

2 1 ,8 9 0
2 1 ,8 5 0
2 1 ,6 9 0
2 1 ,2 3 0

(M
3 ,6 4 4

2 4 ,1 9 0
2 4 ,5 1 0
2 4 ,7 2 0
2 4 ,8 4 0
2 4 ,9 8 0
2 5 ,0 7 0
2 5 ,0 2 0
2 4 ,8 6 0
2 4 ,7 8 0
2 4 ,6 4 0
2 4 ,3 9 0
2 4 ,6 1 0

3 ,7 2 8
3 ,7 9 9
3 ,7 5 9
3 ,7 8 7
3 ,8 4 1

2 1 ,1 7 0
2 0 ,8 2 0
2 0 ,4 8 0
2 0 ,6 2 0
2 0 ,5 6 0
2 0 ,3 5 0
2 0 ,3 3 0
2 0 ,2 9 0
2 0 ,0 0 0
2 0 ,1 4 0
2 0 .4 1 0
2 0 ,6 0 0
2 0 ,8 2 0

4 ,0 0 8
4 ,0 1 2
4 ,0 7 8
4 ,1 6 1
4 ,1 8 5

2 .8
3 .4

4. 9
3. 7
3 .2
2 .7
2 .3

(M
(M
1.4
1A
1 .7

2 .5
2.1
2 .2

2 .6

1 .5

3 .4
3 .7

1.2

2 6 ,7 7 0
2 6 ,2 2 0
2 6 ,2 6 0
2 6 ,5 2 0
2 6 ,7 9 0
2 6 ,8 8 0
2 6 ,8 1 0
2 6 ,8 7 0
2 6 ,6 1 0

2 4 ,8 9 0
2 4 ,8 6 0

2 6 ,1 6 0
2 5 ,9 3 0

2 2 5 ,1 6 0
2 2 5 ,4 4 0

3 ,8 1 8
3 ,8 6 7
3 ,8 8 0
3 ,9 5 3
4 ,0 0 0

U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te (P ercen t)
1959 . . . .
1960 . . . .
1 9 61
1962
1963
1964

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

1965 . . . .
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
19 7 1

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

1972 . . . .
1973 . . . .
1974 . . . .
1975 . . . .
1976 . . . .

5. 3
5. 3
6 .4

5. 9
6. 8
7 .0

(M

5 .3

5 .8
5 .4

(M
(! !

5 .5
5 .0
4 .4

4 .6

(M
I 1)
1 .4

3 .9

1.3

3 .6

3 .3

3 .7
3 .4
3 .4

3 .8
4 .5
4 .4
5 .6

1 .5
16
1 .5
1.5
1 .4

6 .2
6 .2
5 .5
5 .3
6 .9
7.1

1 .6
2 .2
1.9
2 .2
4 .4
4 .4

4 .8
5 .7
5 .4
4 .7
5 .4
8 .3
7.5

2. 2
1. 7

1. 9

2. 0

1. 8

1 .5
1.3
1.3
1 .2

1 .5
1 .4
1.3
1 .4

1. 1
.6
.6
.4

1.3
1 .4

1 .5
1 .8

.3

1.3
1 .2
1.1

1.9
2 .5
2 .3
2 .5
2 .7

1.3
1.4
.9
.8
.8
.8
.8
1 .7

1 .2
1 .2
1 .4

2 .8
2 .6
2 .9
4.1

1.3
1 .4
1.9
2 .0

4 .5

1 N o t a v ailab le.




.4
.3

3 .6
3 .5

2. 8
2. 2
1 .9

3 .3
3 .2
3 .0

3 .3
3 .3
3 .2
3 .0
3 .0

3 .0
3 .8
4.1
3.1
2 .8
2 4 .6

26.3

|

3 .5
3 .3
2 .7
3 .2
3 .5

^ P re lim in a ry es tim a te based on in c o m p le te d a ta .

157

1 .5
2.1
2 .2
1 .9
1 .5
2 .5
2 .7
2 .4
2 .0
1 .6
1 .6

B ib lio g ra p h y

General

Barkin, Solomon. Changing Profile o f European Manpower
Policies. Amherst, University of Massachusetts, 1973.
Bauer, David. Factors Moderating Unemployment Abroad.
Studies in Business Economics, No. 113. New York, Na­
tional Industrial Conference Board, 1970.
Bohning, W. R. “Immigration Policies of Western European
Countries,” International Migration Review, Summer
1974, pp. 155-63.
Bohning, W.R., and Maillat, D. The Effects of the Employ­
ment of Foreign Workers. Paris, Organization for Eco­
nomic Cooperation and Development, 1974.
Bouscaren, Anthony T. European Economic Community
Migrations. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1969.
Braun, Kurt. “European Limitations on Employee Dismis­
sal,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1965, pp. 67-68.
Chapman, Jane R. Employment Related Programs with Im­
pact on Women in Selected Western Countries. Washing­
ton, American Political Science Association, 1973.
Congressional Budget Office. Report o f Congressional Bud­
get Office Conference on the Teenage Unemployment
Problem: What are the Options? Washington, Govern­
ment Printing Office, October 14, 1976.
Cook, Alice H. The Working Mother, A Survey o f Problems
and Programs in Nine Countries. Ithaca, Cornell Univer­
sity, 3975.
Darling, Martha. The Role o f Women in the Economy.
Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. 1977.
“Effects of Recession on Immigrant Labour ” OECD Ob­
server, June 1972, pp, 15-18.
European Economic Community. Les Problems de Main
d ’oeuvre dans la Ccmmunaute 1971. Luxembourg, EEC,
1971.
Flaii.'gan, Robert J. A Study of International Differences
in Phillips Curves. Berkeley, University of California
Press, 1970.
____“The U.S. Phillips Curve and Interna­
tional Unemployment Rate Differentials,” American
Economic Review, March 1973, pp. 114-31.



158

Galenson, Marjorie. Women and Work: An International
Comparison. Ithaca, Cornell University, 1973.
Gavett, Thomas W. “Youth Unemployment and Minimum
Wages,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1970, pp. 3-12.
Gordon, Margaret S. The Comparative Experience with Re­
training Programs in the United States and Europe.
Berkeley, University of California, 1966.
Hansen, Gary B., and others. “Manpower Policies: Lessons
for U.S. From Foreign Experience,” Labor Law Journal,
August 1970, pp. 523-57.
Henle, Peter. Work Sharing as an Alternative to Layoffs.
Washington, Library of Congress, Congressional Re­
search Service, July 19,1976.
Howenstine, E. Jay. Compensatory Employment Pro­
grammes: An International Comparison o f Their Role in
Economic Stabilization and Growth. Paris, Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1969.
__ ______ ____ . “Programs for Providing Winter Jobs in
Construction,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1971,
pp. 24-32.
Hughes, Barry. “Supply Constraints and Short-Term Em­
ployment Functions: A Comment,” The Review o f Eco­
nomics and Statistics, No. 4, 1971, pp. 393-97.
Hume, Ian M. “Migrant Workers in Europe,” Finance and
Development, March 1973, pp. 2-6.
“Illegal Immigrants,” The Economist, November 13,1976,
p. 68.
International Labour Office. Employment and Unemploy­
ment Statistics, Report IV. Geneva, ILO, 1954.
___________ _— . The International Standardization o f
Labour Statistics, Studies and Reports. New Series No.
53, Geneva, ILO, 1959.
______________ _ Labour Force 1950-2000, Volumes IV
and V. Geneva, ILO, 1977.
____________ __ . Manpower Aspects o f Recent Economic
Developments in Europe. Geneva, ILO, 1969.
......................- ..- . Measurement o f Underemployment:
Concepts and Methods. Geneva, ILO, 1966.
_.—____________ Social and Labour Bulletin. Quarterly.

___________ ____ _ Social Security for the Unemployed.

Geneva, ILO, 1976.

______ _________ . Unemployment Protection Under Social

Security-An Appraisal of the Present Situation and the
Role of the ILO. Geneva, ILO, 1975.
___ . Womenpower. Geneva, ILO, 1975.

--------------- ------- . “Unemployment in Nine Industrial Na­
tions, 1973-75,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1975,
pp. 9-18.
Myers, Robert J. “International Comparisons of Unem­
ployment,” The Banker, November 1975, pp. 125762.

“International Unemployment Statistics,” Department of
Employment Gazette (Great Britain), July 1976, pp.
710-14.

Myers, Robert J., and Chandler, John H. “International
Comparisons of Unemployment,” Monthly Labor
Review, August 1962, pp. 857-64.

Jenkins, David. “Job Security Measures Growing Through­
out Europe,” World of Work Report, July 1976, p. 3.

National Commission for Manpower Policy. Reexamining
European Manpower Policies, Special Report No. 10.
Washington, August 1976.

Kayser, Bernard. Cyclically Determined Homeward Flows
of Migrant Workers. Paris, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, 1972.

_________________ School to Work: Improving the Transi­

Lai, Deepak. Unemployment and Wage Inflation in Indus­
trial Economies. Paris, Organization for Economic Coop­
eration and Development, 1977.
Levitan, Sar A., and Belous, Richard S. “Work-sharing Ini­
tiatives at Home and Abroad,” Monthly Labor Review,
September 1977, pp. 16-20.

tion. Washington, 1976.

Neef, Arthur F. “International Unemployment Rates,
1960-64,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1965, pp. 25659.
Neef, Arthur F., and Holland, Rosa A. “Comparative Un­
employment Rates 1964-66,” Monthly Labor Review,
April 1967, pp. 18-20.

Lyon-Caen, Gerard. “Les Travailleurs Etrangers-Etude
Comparative,” Droit Social, Janvier 1975, pp. 1-16.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Demographic Trends, 1970-1985 in OECD Member
Countries. Paris, OECD, 1974.

Maddison, Angus. Economic Growth in the West. London,
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1964. Appendixes C, D,
E,and F.

------------------------- Demographic Trends, Supplement Country

McCarthy, James E. “Employment and Inflation in Major
Industrial Countries,” The Conference Board Worldbusiness Perspectives, August 1975.

Reports. Paris, OECD, 1976.

_________________ Economic Outlook. Semiannually.
----------------------- - Educational Statistics Yearbook, Vol­

umes I and II. Paris, OECD, 1975.

“Migrants: Unemployed, They Stay On,” ILO Information,
No. 1, 1976, p. 11.

_________________ Inflation: The Present Problem. Paris,

Mincer, Jacob. “Labor Force Participation and Unemploy­
ment: A Review of Recent Evidence,” in R. A. Gordon
and M. S, Gordon, ed., Prosperity and Employment.
New York, Wiley and Sons, 1966.

------------------------ International Migration o f Manpower-

Mittelstadt, Axel. “Unemployment Benefits and Related
Payments in Seven Major Countries,” OECD Economic
Outlook, July 1975, pp. 3-22,
Moy, Joy anna, and Sorrentino, Constance. “An Analysis of
Unemployment in Nine Industrial Countries,” Monthly
Labor Review, April 1977, pp. 12-24.



159

OECD, 1970.

A Bibliography. Paris, OECD, 1969.

- _____________ Labour Force Statistics. Yearbooks and

quarterly supplements.

— _____________ Main Economic Indicators. Monthly.
_________________ Manpower Problems. Paris, OECD, 1974.
_______________ . Proposals for the Future Development

o f Manpower Statistics. Paris, OECD, 1971.

------ -------------------Results o f an Inquiry on Demographic

Sorrentino, Constance. “Comparing Employment Shifts in
10 Industrialized Countries,” Monthly Labor Review,
October 1971, pp. 3-11.

Trends. Paris, OECD, May 1973.

________________ Revenue Statistics of OECD Member

Countries 1965-1972. Paris, OECD, 1975.

_________________ SOPEMI-Continuous Reporting System

on Migration, 1976 Report. Paris, OECD, 1976.

_________________ The Entry o f Young People into Work­

ing Life. Paris, OECD, 1977.

--------------------- . “Unemployment Compensation in 8 Na­
tions,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1976, pp. 18-24.
----------------------- “Unemployment in Nine Industrialized
Countries,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1972, pp.
29-33.
------------ --------- - “Unemployment in the United States
and Seven Foreign Countries,” Monthly Labor Review,
September 1970, pp, 12-23.

_________________ The Impact o f the 1974-75 Recession on

the Employment o f Women. Paris, OECD, 1977.

_________________ Unemployment Compensation and Re­

Sorrentino, Constance, and Moy, Joyanna. “Unemploy­
ment in the United States and Eight Foreign Countries,”
Monthly Labor Review, January 1974, pp. 47-52.

Perlmutter, James. “Migrant Workers in Western Europe,”
Labor Developments Abroad, April-May 1971, pp. 1-10.

Spitaller, Erich. ‘Trices and Unemployment in Selected In­
dustrial Countries,” International Monetary Fund Staff
Papers, November 1971, pp. 528-69.

lated Employment Policy Measures. Paris, OECD, forth­
coming.

President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Un­
employment Statistics. Measuring Employment and
Unemployment. Washington, Government Printing Of­
fice, 1962. Appendix A.
Reder, Melvin W. International Differences in Unemploy­
ment Rates o f New Entrants to the Labor Force. Stan­
ford, Stanford University, 1970.
Reubens, Beatrice G. Bridges to Work: International Com­
parison o f Transition Services. New York, Universe
Books, 1977.
________________ “Foreign Experience,” in Report of
Congressional Budget Office Conference on the Teenage
Unemployment Problem: What are the Options? Wash­
ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, October 14,
1976.
______________ _ “Manpower Policy in Western Europe,”
Manpower, November 1972, pp. 16-23.
______________ _ Policies for Apprenticeship. Study pre­
pared for the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, 1977, unpublished.
_______________ _ The Hard-to-Employ: European Pro­

grams. New York, Columbia University Press, 1970.

Sinfield, Adrian. The Long-Term Unemployed. Paris,
OECD, 1968.
“Slamming the Door on Europe’s Guest Workers,” The
Economist, August 9,1975, p. 24.



160

Statistical Office of the European Communities. Enquete
Par Sondage Sur Les Forces de Travail en 1970. Statistiques Sociales 1971, No. 2.
_________________ Enquete Par Sondage Sur Les Forces de

Travail en 1971. Statistiques Sociales 1972, No 3.

— --------------------- Population et Forces de Travail en 1968.

Statistiques Sociales 1969, No. 6.

_________________ Population et Forces de Travail en 1969 .

Statistiques Sociales 1970, No. 4.

_________________ Une Enquete Par Sondage Sur Les

Forces de Travail Dans Les Pays de la CEE en 1960. In­
formation Statistiques 1963, No. 2.

“Statistics of Unemployment Among Workers’ Organiza­
tions,” International Labour Review, January 1921,
pp. 115-20.
Ulman, Lloyd. “Wage-Price Policies-Lessons From
Abroad,” Industrial Relations, May 1969, pp. 195-213.
“Up-To-Date Information on Migration through ‘SOPEMI’,”
OECD Observer, February 1974, pp. 3940.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social
Security Administration. Social Security Programs
Throughout the World, 1975, Research Report No. 48,
1976.

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

U.S. Department of Labor and Japanese Ministry of Labor.
The Role and Status of Women Workers in the United
States and Japan. A Joint United States-Japan Study.
Washington, Government Printing Office, 1976.

______________ _ “Unemployment Statistics and What
They Mean,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1971,
pp. 22-29.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Transition From School to Work in Selected Countries.
Washington, Government Printing Office, 1969.

Briggs, Vernon M., Jr. “Mexican Workers in the United
States Labor Market: A Contemporary Dilemma,”
International Labour Review, November 1975, pp.351-

_________________Youth Unemployment and Minimum

Wages. BLS Bulletin 1657,1970.

68 .

U.S, Department of Labor, Manpower Administration.
Manpower Policy and Programs in Five Western Euro­
pean Countries: France, Great Britain, the Netherlands,
Sweden, and West Germany. Manpower Research Bulle­
tin No. 11, July 1966.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Characteristics of Major Col­
lective Bargaining Agreements, July 1, 1975. BLS Bulle­
tin 1957,1977.

Werner, Heinz. “Freizugigkeit der Arbeitskrafte und die
Wanderungsbewegungen in den Landem der Europaischen Gemeinschaft,” Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung, No. 4/1973, pp. 326-71.

_________________ Concepts and Methods Used in Man­

“When Enough Will be Enough,” The Economist, August
25,1973, pp. 49-50.

Force Statistics Derived from the Current Population
Survey. BLS Report 463,1976.

power Statistics from the Current Population Survey.
BLS Report 313,1967.

_________________ Concepts and Methods Used in Labor

Wittrock, Jan. Reducing Seasonal Unemployment in the
Construction Industry. Paris, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, 1967.

________________ _ Directory of Labor Force Studies Based

Yemin, Edward. “Job Security: Influence of ILO Standards
and Recent Trends,” International Labour Review,
February 1976, pp. 17-33.

_________________ Employment and Earnings. Monthly.

on the Current Population Survey. BLS Report 456,
1976.

_________________ How the Government Measures Unem­

ployment. BLS Report 505,1977.

Zeisel, Joseph S. “Comparison of British and U.S. Unem­
ployment Rates,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1962,
pp. 489-501.

_________________ Labor Force and Unemployment. BLS

_ _ _ _ _ . The Structure of Unemployment at Full

_________________ Some Social Aspects of Unemployment.

BLS Report 469, 1975.

Employment in Great Britain and the United States.
Ann Arbor, University Microfilms.

______________— . Unemployment: Measurement Problems

and Recent Trends. BLS Report 445, 1975.

United States

Bednarzik, Robert W. ‘The Plunge of Employment During
the Recent Recession,” Monthly Labor Review, Decem­
ber 1975, pp. 3-10.
Bednarzik, Robert W., and St. Marie, Stephen. “Employ­
ment and Unemployment in 1976,” Monthly Labor Re­
view, February 1977, pp. 3-13.

Bureau of the Census. The Current Population Survey-A
Report on Methodology. Bureau of the Census Technical
Paper No. 7,1963.
_________________ The X -ll Variant o f the Census Method

II Seasonal Adjustment Program. Bureau of the Census
Technical Paper No. 15 (1967 revision), 1967.

Congressional Budget Office. Temporary Measures to Stim­
ulate Employment: An Evaluation of Some Alternatives,
September 2,1975 (Revised September 26,1975).

Bradshaw, Thomas F., and School, Janet L. “Workers on
Layoff: A Comparison of Two Data Series,” Monthly
Labor Review, November 1976, pp. 29-33.



Report 486,1976.

161

Levitan, Sar A., and Taggart, Robert. “The Emergency Em­
ployment Act: An Interim Assessment,” Monthly Labor
Review, June 1972, pp. 3-11.

Dernburg, Thomas, and Strand, Kenneth. “Hidden Unem­
ployment 1953-62: A Quantitative Analysis by Age and
Sex,” American Economic Review, March 1966, pp. 7195.
Early, John F. “Effects of the Energy Crisis on Employ­
ment,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1974, pp. 8-16.

Lovati, Jean M. “The Unemployment Rate as an Economic
Indicator,” Federal Reserve Bank o f St. Louis, September
1976, pp. 2-9.

Feldstein, Martin S. Lowering the Permanent Rate o f Un­
employment. Washington, D.C., Government Printing
Office, 1973.

Magnum, Garth L., and Walsh, John. “A Decade of Man­
power Training,” Manpower, April 1973, pp. 20-26.

_______________“The Economics of the New Unemploy­
ment,” Public Interest, Fall 1973, pp. 342.

Marston, Stephen T. “Impact of Unemployment Insurance
on Job Search,”Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,
No. 1,1975, pp. 13-60.

------------------- “Unemployment Insurance: Time for
Reform,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1975,
pp. 51-61.

Myers, Robert J., and Swerdloff, Sol. “Seasonality and Con­
struction,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1967,
pp. 1-8.

Flaim, Paul O. “Employment and Unemployment During
the First Half of 1974,” Monthly Labor Review, August
1974, pp. 3-7.

National Center for Education Statistics. National Longi­
tudinal Study o f the High School Class o f 1972. Data
File Users Manual. Washington, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, July 1976.

Flaim, Paul O., and Schwab, P. M. “Changes in Employ­
ment and Unemployment in 1910,” Monthly Labor Re­
view, February 1971, pp. 12-19.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Manpower Policy and Programmes in the United States.
Paris, OECD, 1964.

Fullerton, Howard N., and Flaim, Paul O. “New Labor
Force Projections to 1990,” Monthly Labor Review, De­
cember 1976, pp. 3-13.

Patten, Thomas H., Jr. Manpower Planning and the Develop­
ment o f Human Resources. New York, John Wiley and
Sons, 1971.

Garfinkle, Stuart H. “The Outcome of a Spell of Unem­
ployment,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1977, pp.
54-57.
Gellner, Christopher G. “A 25-year Look at Employment as
Measured by Two Surveys,” Monthly Labor Review,
July 1973, pp. 14-23.

Perry, George L. “Changing Labor Markets and Inflation,”
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, No. 3, 1970,
pp. 411-48.
Phelps, Edmund S. “Economic Policy and Unemployment
in the 1960’s,” The Public Interest, Winter 1974, pp.
30-46.

Grubel, H. G,, and Maki, D. R. “The Effects of Unemploy­
ment Benefits on U.S, Unemployment Rates,” Canada,
Simon Fraser University, mimeo, August 1974.

President of the United States. Employment and Training
Report o f the President. Annually from 1976.

“Illegal Alien Study Urges Rethinking on Immigration,”
The Washington Post, January 9,1977, p. A-l.

________________.Manpower Report of the President.

Katz, Arnold. “Schooling, Age, and Length of Unemploy­
ment,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July
1974, pp. 597-605.

Annually until 1975.

President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Un­
employment Statistics. Measuring Employment and Un­
employment. Washington, Government Printing Office,
1962.

Killingsworth, Charles C. “Manpower Evaluations: Vul­
nerable but Useful,” Monthly Labor Review, April
1975, pp. 48-51.




162

Reynolds, James J. “Seasonal Unemployment in the Con­
struction Industry,'’ Hearings before the Select Sub­
committee on Labor of the Committee on Education
and Labor, House of Representatives, 90th Congress,
Second Session, on HR 15990, July 15, 1968.

Werneke, Diane. “Job Creation Programmes: The United
States Experience,” International Labour Review,
August 1976, pp. 43-59.
Young, Anne M. “Employment of School Age Youth,”
Monthly Labor Review, September 1970, pp. 4-11.

Schweitzer, Stuart O., and Smith, Ralph E. “The Per­
sistence of the Discouraged Worker Effect,” Industrial
and Labor Relations Review. January 1974, pp. 24960.

__________ _____ “Students, Graduates, and Dropouts in
the Labor Market, October 1975,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1976, pp. 3741.

Seidman, Laurence S. The Design o f Federal Employment
Programs: An Economic Analysis. Berkeley, University
of California, 1974.
Shiskin, Julius. “Employment and Unemployment: The
Doughnut or the Hole?” Monthly Labor Review, Feb­
ruary 1976, pp. 3-10.
Shiskin, Julius, and Stein, Robert L. “Problems in Measur­
ing Unemployment,” Monthly Labor Review, August
1975, pp. 3-10.
Smith, Ralph E., and Vanski, Jean E. “Recent Performance
of Unemployment as an Indicator of Labor Market Con­
ditions,” Journal of Economics and Business, Fall 1976,
pp. 78-81.
St. Marie, Stephen M., and Bednarzik, Robert W. “Employ­
ment and Unemployment During 1915” Monthly Labor
Review, February 1976, pp. 11-20,
Stein, Robert L. “New Definitions for Employment and
Unemployment,” Employment and Earnings, February
1967, pp. 9-13.
—— ----—-------- . “Work History, Attitudes, and Income
of the Unemployed,” Monthly Labor Review, December
1963, pp. 1405-13.

Canada

Bureau of Statistics. Facts About the Unemployed, 196071. Ottawa, Information Canada, 197 L
Cook, P.A., and others. Economic Impact o f Selected Gov­
ernment Programs Directed Toward the Labour Market.
Ottawa, Economic Council of Canada, 1976.
Denton, Frank T. The Growth of Manpower in Canada.
Ottawa, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1970.
_____ __________ .The Short-Run Dynamics o f the Cana­

dian Labor Market. Ottawa, Economic Council of
Canada, 1976.

Denton, Frank, and Ostry, Sylvia. An Analysis o f Post-War
Unemployment. Economic Council of Canada, Staff
Study No. 3, Ottawa, Queen’s Printer, 1964.
Department of Labour. Changing Patterns in Women’s Em­
ployment. Ottawa, Women’s Bureau, 1966.
_________ ___________ _ Unemployment Insurance in the

70’s. Ottawa, Queen’s Printer, 1970.

______________________ Women at Work in Canada. Ot­

tawa, Queen’s Printer, 1964.

Telia, Alfred. “The Relation of Labor Force to Employ­
ment,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, April
1974, pp. 454-69.

_______________ _____ . Women in the Labour Force 1970,

Thurow, Lester C. “The Role of Manpower Policy in
Achieving Aggregative Goals,” in R. A. Gordon, ed.,
Toward A Manpower Policy’. New York, Wiley and Sons,
1967, Chapter 4.

Department of Manpower and Immigration. Notes on Em­
ployment and Unemployment. Ottawa, Department of
Manpower and Immigration, 1971.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare. Unemployment and the Energy Crisis, 1974.
Joint Hearings, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, February
14,1974.



163

Facts and Figures. Ottawa, Department of Labour,
1971.

Economic Council of Canada. Manpower in Construction.
Ottawa, Information Canada, 1975.
_________ _____People and Jobs-A Study o f the Canad­

ian Labour Market. Ottawa, Information Canada, 1976.

______ _
. Toward More Stable Growth in Con­
struction. Ottawa, Information Canada, 1974.

----------------------- Labour Force Survey Division .Research
Papers. Occasional.

Green, C., and Cousineau, J. M. Unemployment in Canada:
The Impact o f Unemployment Insurance. Ottawa, Eco­
nomic Council of Canada, 1976.

Swan, N., MacRae, P., and Steinberg, C. Income Main­
tenance Programs: Their Effect on Labour Supply
and Aggregate Demand in the Maritimes. Ottawa,
Economic Council of Canada, 1976.

Grubel, H. G., Maki, D. R., and Sax, S. “Real and Insur­
ance-Induced Unemployment in Canada,” Canadian
Journal of Economics, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 174-91.
Kaliski, S. F. “Structural Unemployment in Canada:
Towards a Definition of Geographic Dimension,”
Canadian Journal of Economics, August 1968, pp.
551-65.
Lando, Mordechai E. The Sex Differential in Canadian
Unemployment Data. Center for Naval Analyses, Pro­
fessional Paper No. 2, January 9,1970.
Newton, Keith. “Interpreting National Unemployment
Rates,” Industrial Relations Journal, Winter 1974,
pp. 46-58.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Manpower Policy and Programmes in Canada. Paris,
OECD, 1966.
Ostry, Sylvia. The Female Worker in Canada. Ottawa, Do­
minion Bureau of Statistics, 1968.
.___________________Unemployment in Canada. Ottawa,
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1968.
Plasse, Leonel. Labour Force Activities and Characteristics
of Students. Statistics Canada Research Paper Number
14, July 1977.
Spencer, Byron G., and Featherstone, Dennis C. Married
Female Labour Force Participation: A Micro Study.
Special Labour Force Studies, Ser. B, No, 4, Ottawa,
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1970.
Statistics Canada. Historical Labour ForceStatisticsActual Data, Seasonal Factors, Seasonally Adjusted
Data. Annually.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Incomes o f Unemployed Individuals and
Their Families, 1971. Ottawa, Information Canada,
1972.
_______________ The Labour Force. Monthly.




164

Vandercamp, John. Mobility Behavior in the Camdian
Labour Force. Economic Council of Canada, Special
Study, No. 16, Ottawa, Information Canada, 1973.
Australia

Advisory Committee on Commonwealth Employment Serv­
ice Statistics. Report o f the Advisory Committee on
Commonwealth Employment Service Statistics. Mel­
bourne, November 1973.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Labour Force. Quarterly
and annually.
_____________ . Seasonally Adjusted Indicators. Annually.
Department of Labour. An Analysis o f Full Employment in
Australia. Labor Market Studies No. 2,1970.
___ ____________Female Unemployment in Four Urban
Centers. Labour Market Studies No. 3,1970.
________ ______ _ Manpower Policy in Australia. 1974.
“The Employment Situation,” Personnel Practice Bulle­
tin, March 1971, pp. 86-89.
The Flinders University, Institute of Labour Studies.
Australian Bulletin o f Labour. Quarterly.
Gregory, R. G., and Sheehan, P. J. Hidden and Other
Measures o f Unemployment in Australia 1964-1972.
The Flinders University, Institute of Labour Studies,
Working Paper Series No. 7, February 1974.
Hancock, Keith, and Hughes, Barry. Relative Wages, Insti­
tutions and Australian Labour Markets. The Flinders
University, Institute of Labour Studies, Working Paper
Series No. I,May 1975.
Keating, M. The Australian Workforce 1910-11 to 1960-61.
Canberra, Progress Press, 1973.

Khoo, Edmond. Estimates o f the Full-Term Duration o f
Unemployment in Australia 1962 to 1975. The Flinders
University, Institute of Labour Studies, Working Paper
Series No. 15, February 1976.

____ ______ ___ “Permanent Employment in Japan:
Facts and Fantasies,” Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, October 1972, pp. 615-30.
Cole, Robert E., and Umetani, Shuruchiro. “Manpower
Training and Lifetime Employment in Japan,” Monthly
Labor Review, November 1974, pp. 43-45.

MacDonald, John. Wages and Prices in Australia: On the
Short and Long-Run Trade-Offs Between Inflation and
Unemployment. The Flinders University, Institute of
Labour Studies, Working Paper Series No. 13, December
1974.

Dahareng, Marcelle. “Japanese Women at Work,” Free
Labour World, December 1971, pp. 8-10.
Diebold, John. “Management Can Learn from Japan,”
Business Week, September 29, 1973, pp. 14 and 19.

Merrilees, Bill. “Hidden Unemployment of Women in
Australia: Frictional, Cyclical, and Structural Dimen­
sions,” Journal o f Industrial Relations, March 1977, pp.
50-64.

Economic Planning Agency. Japanese Economic Indicators.
Monthly.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Economic Surveys: Australia. Annually.

Emi, Koichi. “The Structure and its Movements of the Ter­
tiary Industry in Japan,” Hitotsubashi Journal of Eco­
nomics, June 1971, pp. 23-32.

Parkin, Michael. “The Short-Run and Long-Run Trade-Offs
Between Inflation and Unemployment in Australia,”
Australian Economic Papers, December 1973, pp. 12744.

“Employment Situation Still Serious,” Mainichi Daily
News, March 8, 1977.

Japan

Japan Times, Ltd. Economic Survey of Japan, I970j71.
Tokyo, Japan Times, Ltd., 1971.

“Hidden Unemployment Rapidly Growing,” The Oriental
Economist, April 1975, p. 44.

Abegglen, James C. Management and Worker: The Japanese
Solution. Tokyo, Sophia University, 1973.

“The Japanese Labor Market After the Oil Crisis,” Japan
Labor Bulletin, June 1977, pp. 4-8.

Akaoka, Isao. “Control of Amount of Employment in Jap­
anese Companies Under the Life-Time Employment,”
Kyoto University Economic Review, April-0ctober
1974, pp. 59-78.

“The Labor Market for College Graduates in Postwar Jap­
an,” Japan Labor Bulletin, March 1977, pp. 5-12.
“Layoff with Guaranteed Income,” Japanese Labour Bulle­
tin, December 1971, pp. 2-3.

Awanohara, Susumu. “Japan Faces Labour Dilemma,” Far
Eastern Economic Review, March 12, 1976, pp. 37-38.

“Manpower Policy in Japan,” OECD Observer, April 1973,
pp. 33-35.

Braun, Kurt. Labor Law and Practice in Japan. BLS Report
376,1970.

Marsh, Robert M., and Mannari, Hiroshi. “A New Look at
‘Lifetime Commitment’ in Japanese Industry,” Econom­
ic Development and Cultural Change, July 1972, pp.
611-30.

Bureau of Statistics. Annual Report on the Labour Force
Survey.
_______________ _ Monthly Report on the Labour Force

Survey.

Oberdorfer, Don. “Japanese Soft Touch on Layoffs,” The
Washington Post, March 9,1975, pp. Gl and G8.

Cole, Robert E. “Functional Alternatives and Economic
Development: An Empirical Example of Permanent Em­
ployment in Japan,” American Sociological Review ,
August 1973, pp. 424-38.

Okada, Yasuiko. “Textile Industry Hit by Serious Reces­
sion,” The Japan Economic Review, February 15,1975,
P-3.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Manpower Policy in Japan. Paris, OECD, 1973.

_______________ _ Japanese Blue Collar: The Changing Tra­

dition. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1971.




165

“Repercussions of Oil Crisis,” Japan Labor Bulletin, Jan­
uary 1974,p .1.

Germany

“Bonn Curbs Foreign Laborers,” The Washington Post,
November 24, 1973, p. A-l.

Reubens, Beatrice. “Manpower Training in Japan,”Monthly
Labor Review, September 1973, pp. 16-24.

Bremer, Hermann W. “Job Placement in Germany, ” In­
ternational Labour Review, September/October 1970,
pp. 12-15.

Taira, Koji. Economic Development and the Labor Market
in Japan. New York, Columbia University Press, 1970.
“The 1973 Labor White Paper,” Japan Labor Bulletin, Sep­
tember 1974, pp. 5-8.

Bundeminister fur Arbeit und Sozialordnung. Hauptergebnisse derArbeits und Sozialstatistik. Annually.

France

Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit. Amtliche Nachrichten der Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit-Arbeitsstatistik. Annually and
monthly.

Castellan, Michel “Comptes Sociodemographiques: L’Exemple des Emplois et de la Mobilite Intersectorielle,”
Economic et Statistique, Fevrier 1976, pp. 27-38.
“Early Retirement for Some Manual Workers in France,”
Incomes Data Services International Report, July 1976,
PP - 2-3.

Deutsche Bundesbank. Statistiche Beihefte zu den Monatsberichten der Deutschen Bundesbank, Reihe 4 Saisonbereinigte Wirtschaftszahlen. Monthly.

Grais, Bernard. “Methodes et Sources Utilisees Pour la
Mesure du Chomage,” Economie et Statistique, March
1975, pp. 63-69.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Manpower Policy in Germany. Paris, OECD, 1974.

Guilbert, Madeleine, and others. Le Travail Temporaire.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Travaux et
Documents, No. 2, Paris, Societe des Amis du Centre
d’Etudes Sociologiques, 1970.

Ross-Skinner, Jean. “How Germany Beat Inflation,” Dun’s,
November 1974, pp. 80-82.

Institute National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques. Enquetes sur LEmploi, Series D. Annually.
------------------ .Structures de la Population Active.
Resultats des Enquetes sur LEmploi 1962 1967. Les
collections de PINSEE Series D. Paris, INSEE, 1970.

Statistisches Bundesamt. Entwicklung der Erwerbstatigkeit,
Reihe 6, Fachserie A, Bevolkerung undKultur. Annually.
_______ ________ Wirtschaft und Statistik. Monthly.
“Training by Stages,” Training for Progress, 1970, pp. 8-15.
“Unemployment Problems in the Federal Republic of Ger­
many,” Department o f Employment Gazette (Great
Britain), April 1977, p. 344.

Mi chon, Francois. Chomeurs et Chomage. Paris, Universite
de Paris, Seminaire d’Economie du Travail, 1974.
Ministere du Travail. Bulletin Mensuel des Statistiques du
Travail. Monthly.

Voss, Joachim H., ed. “What’s New in Labor and Social
Policy?” New York, German Information Center,
Monthly 1975-76.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Manpower Policy in France. Paris, OECD, 1973.

Great Britain

“Que deviennent les demandeurs d’emploi au sortir de 1’
ANPE?” Economie et Statistique, Mai 1977, pp. 5762.

“A Recession With Full Employment?” The Economist,
January 24, 1970, pp. 49-50.

“Retire the Old, Recruit the Young,” The Economist,
April 30, 1977, pp. 96-99.

Baxter, J. L. “Long-Term Unemployment in Great Britain,
1953-1971,” Bulletin of the Institute o f Economics and
Statistics, November 1972, pp. 329-44.

Vachei, Jacques. “Les Sources Statistiques sur L’Emploi,”
Economie et Statistique, Mai 1976, pp. 13-27.

“Britain’s Jobless: A Rapid Rise,” U.S. News and World Re­
port, May 24, 1971, pp. 84-85.




166

Manpower Services Commission. Annual Report 1974-75.
London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1974.

‘Characteristics of the Unemployed: Sample Survey,” De­
partment o f Employment Gazette, June 1973, pp. 21119.
“Comparisons Between Census of Population and Ministry
of Labour Estimates of Working Population,” Ministry
of Labour Gazette, November 1965, pp. 478-79.

“MSC Evaluates Job Creation,” Department of Employ­
ment Gazette, March 1977, pp. 211-17.
Mukheijee, Santosh. There's Work to be Done. London,
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1976.

Cubbin, J. S., and Foley, K. “The Extent of Benefit-Induced
Unemployment in Great Britain: Some New Evidence,
Oxford Economic Papers, March 1977, pp. 128-40.

Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. A Quality
Check on the 1966 10 Percent Sample Census o f Eng­
land and Wales. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office, 1972.

Daniel, W. W. “A National Survey of the Unemployed,”
PEP Broadsheet No. 546, October 1974.

_________________ The General Household Survey. Lon­

don, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, annually from
1971.

Department of Employment. Department of Employment
Gazette. Monthly.
“Economic Situation,” Economic Trends, May 1971, pp.
iii-vii.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Economic Surveys: United Kingdom. Annually.

General Federation of Trade Unions. The Present Unemployment-An Analysis and Policy Proposals. Leicester,
Leicester Printers Ltd., 1972.

----------------------- .Manpower Policy in the United King­

“Government Measures to Alleviate Unemployment,”
Department of Employment Gazette, April 1977,
p. 374.

Parker, S. R., and others. Effects of the Redundancy Pay­
ments Act. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,
1971.

“Government Plans for Employment and Training,” De­
partment o f Employment Gazette, March 1973, pp.
239-45.

Pettman, Barrie O. “Government Vocational Training
Schemes in Great Britain,” International Journal of
Social Economics, pp. 184-96.

“Heath Tightening Unemployment,” The Washington Post,
December 6,1971, p. D-12.

______________ “Industrial Training in Great Britain,”
International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 1, No.
1, pp. 63-83.

dom. Paris, OECD, 1970.

Hill, M. J. Men Out o f Work: A Study o f Unemployment in
3 English Towns. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1973.
Hunt, Audrey. A Survey of Women’sEmployment. London,
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1968.

Phillips, A. W. “The Relation Between Unemployment and
the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United
Kingdom, 1861-1957,” Economica, November 1958, pp.
283-99.
Plan for Modern Employment Service,” Department of
Employment Gazette, December 1972, p. 1095-98.

Interdepartmental Working Party on Unemployment Sta­
tistics. Unemployment Statistics: Report o f an Inter­
departmental Working Party. London, Her Majesty’s Reid, Graham L. “The Role of the Employment Service in
Redeployment in Great Britain,” British Journal o f In­
Stationery Office, 1972.
dustrial Relations, July 1971, pp. 160-84.
“Job Release Takes Off,” Department o f Employment
Gazette, January 1977, p. 1.
Showier, Brian. The Employment Service and Management.
Institute of Scientific Business No. 6. Yorkshire, Insti­
“Job Swap,” Income Data Services International Report,
tute of Scientific Business, 1972.
October 1976, p. 2.
Joseph, Keith. “Measuring Unemployment,” Long Range
Planning, June 1976, pp. 12-15.




167

Standing, Guy. “Hidden Workless,” New Society, October
14, 1971, pp. 716-19.

“Trends in the Composition of the Unemployed,” Depart­
ment of Employment Gazette, March 1973,pp. 246-55.

Istituto Centrale di Statistica. Annuario di Statistiche de
Lavoro. Annually.

“Unemployment and Notified Vacancies-Flow Statistics,”
Department of Employment Gazette, September 1976,
pp. 976-81.

------------------------- Bolletino Mensile di Statistica. Monthly

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Economic Surveys: Italy. Annually.

“The Unemployment Statistics and Their Interpretation,”
Department of Employment Gazette, March 1975, pp.
179-83.

“Si Allarga L’area del Malessere,” II Sole, May 28, 1977,
pp. 1-2.

“Unemployment Still Rising,” Labour Research, October
1970, pp. 155-56.

Sweden

“Anti-Recession Policies in Sweden,” OECD Obsewer,
“The Unregistered Unemployed in Great Britain,” Depart­
March-April 1976, pp. 31-32.
ment of Employment Gazette, December 1976, pp.
1331-36.
Brehmer, Ekhard, and Bradford, Maxwell R. “Incomes and
Labor Market Policies in Sweden, 1945-1970,” Interna­
Watson, J. Jordan. “Manpower Policy in Great Britain,”
tional Monetary Fund Staff Papers, March 1974, pp.
International Labour Review, May/June 1970, pp. 17-19.
101-26.
Wedderburn, Dorothy. White Collar Redundancy. Univer­ Brems, Hans. “Swedish Fine Tuning,” Challenge, MarchApril 1976, pp. 3942.
sity of Cambridge, Department of Applied Economics,
Occasional Paper No. 1.Cambridge, Cambridge Univers­
ity Press, 1963.
“Flexible Retirement Provisions in Sweden: A Novel Sys­
tem,” European Industrial Relations Review, March
Zeisel, Joseph S. “Comparison of British and U.S. Unem­
1977, pp. 11-12.
ployment Rates,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1962,
pp. 489-501.
Forseback, Lennart. Industrial Relations and Employment
in Sweden. Stockholm, The Swedish Institute, 1976.
__ ______________ The Structure o f Unemployment at Full
Employment in Great Britain and the United States.
Ginzberg, Eli. “Sweden’s Manpower Policies: A Look at the
Ann Arbor, University Microfilms.
Leader,” Manpower, November 1970, p. 26.
Italy

Birtig, Guido. “Employment Problems and the Educational
System in Italy,” International Labour Review, July-Au­
gust 1976, pp. 11-25.

Meltz, Noah M. Observations on Sweden's Employment
Service. Toronto, Toronto University, 1970.
Ministry of Finance. The Swedish Budget. Annually.

CENSIS. L ’Occupazione Occulta. CENSIS Ricerca No. 2.
Rome, CENSIS, 1976.

National Labour Market Board. Labour Market Statistics.
Monthly.

Gilbert, Sari. “Italy’s Universities: Preparation for the Job­
less Rolls,” The Washington Post, March 5, 1977, p.
A-10.

“Rising Absenteeism in Sweden Attributed to Generous
Sick Pay,” World o f Work Report, January 1977, p. 12.

“Incentives to Help Young Workers,” Income Data Services
International Report, December 1976, p. 7.

Statistiska Centralbyran. Arbetskraftsundersokningen. An­
nually.
_________________ The Labour Force Surveys. Monthly.

“Indagine Speciale Sulle Persone Non Appartenenti Alle
Forze Di Lavoro,” Supplement to the Monthly Bulle­
tin of Statistics, No. 11, November 1971.*

*U.S. GOVERNMENT
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ PRINTING
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Swerdloff, Sol. “Sweden’s Manpower Programs,” Monthly
Labor Review, January 1966, pp. 1-6.
168

OFFICE: 1978

273-155/6467

1-3

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Regional Offices

AMERICAN

Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street. N
E_
Atlanta. Ga 30309
Phone: (404) 881-4418

Regions VII and VIII*
911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481

Region ii
Suite 3400
1515 Broadway
New York. N Y 10036
Phone: '212) 399-5405

Region V
9th Floor
Federal Office Building
230 S Dearborn Street
Chicago, III 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880

Regions IX and X**
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Box 36017
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-4678

Region lii
3535 Market Street
P O Box 13309
Philadelphia. Pa 19101
Phone (215) 596-1154

Region VI
Second Floor
555 Griffin Square Building
Dallas. Tex. 75202
Phone: (214) 749-3516

Region i
1603 JFK Federal Building
Government Center
Boston Mass 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761




* Regions VII and VII are serviced
by Kansas City
“ Regions IX and X are serviced
by San Francisco

U. S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, D C. 20212

Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
Third Class Mail

Official Business
Penalty tor private use. $300




Lab-441


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102