Falling Unemployment Rates in OECD Countries

7/29/2019 Falling Unemployment Rates in OECD Countries

1/24

Daniel Hall

1. Unemployment rates fell across OECD countries over the two

decades before the Great Recession (2008-). To what factors do you

attribute this fall? How far can your explanation also provide the basis

for explaining observed patterns of unemployment rates across OECD

countries since the on-set of the Great Recession?

In general we can say that the fall in unemployment across the OECD over the decades

preceding 2008 has not been down to the use of any individual policy tools in isolation, but

rather through a combination. Furthermore there has not been a specific combination of policy

tools, which has proved successful in unemployment reduction across OECD countries in this

period. The two decades prior to 2008 made it clear that there is not a one size fits all

combination of supply and demand side policies to reduce unemployment. Broadly speaking,

supply side models for reducing unemployment can be divided into Nordic (used by

Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Australia among others) and Anglo-Saxon (used by the

Ireland, U.S.A and the U.K among others) (Coats, D. 2006, pp. 22-23). The Nordic model has

focused on allowing large flows in and out of the unemployment pool, while providing high

levels of support to the unemployed with an emphasis on collective wage bargaining and

social dialogue. Policy in the Anglo-Saxon model has focused on combining low levels of

welfare support, limited taxation, weak trade unions and low employment protection. It is also

important to point out the following: unemployment has not fallen across all OECD countries

over this period (See Appendix 1); also, although unemployment did fall across OECD

countries between 1988 and 2008, for most, unemployment rose from 1988 into the early

90s, continuing an upward trend in unemployment rates from the 70s and 80s, before

beginning to fall. The upward trend in unemployment is generally accepted to have been

caused by the oil price spikes in the 70s1. The rise in unemployment was accompanied by

1 These spikes in the price of oil were caused by the Arab oil embargo 1973, The Iranian

revolution 1979 and the First Gulf War of 1980.


2/24

Daniel Hall

rising inflation, with both persisting through the 70s and into the 80s and early 90s. This

stagflation required policy makers to reconsider the original conception of the Phillips

curve2, which implied a trade off between unemployment and inflation. Instead policies were

implemented based around an expectations augmented Phillips curve3, where unemployment

could not be sustained below a certain level without an increase in the inflation rate. This lead

policy makers to look at supply side policys as a means of shifting the Phillips curve to the

left, to decrease unemployment for a given inflation rate, in order to lower the non-

accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, the NAIRU, (Friedman, 1968). With this in mind

the fall in actual unemployment across the OECD can be taken initially as a fall in the

NAIRU, from the early 1990s until 2000. From 2000 onwards as inflation remained stable,

the actual unemployment rate is roughly equivalent to the natural rate4, with variation coming

from cyclical demand side factors. (Blanchard, 2000) This is charted in Appendix 4.

The key recommendations made by the OECD in the early 1990s (OECD, 1994) to reduce

unemployment, serve as a good basis for examining which policy action we might attribute

the fall in unemployment levels to5. I will primarily focus on those policy recommendations,

which sought to increase the flexibility of the labour market as a way of reducing

unemployment. A dual account of what it is for labour markets to be flexible is given by

HMT (2003)6. Labour market flexibility is divided into two concepts. The first is the ability of

the labour market to return to equilibrium following a disturbance, through adjustments in the

wage, supply of labour and demand for labour. This concept of labour market flexibility

2For the derivation of the original Phillips curve seeAppendix 2

3 For the derivation of the original Phillips curve seeAppendix 34

Blanchard makes this assertion based on the assumption that when inflation increases,unemployment is below its natural rate and vice versa. When inflation is stable,

unemployment is at its natural rate.5 For the key recommendations see Appendix 56 It is important to note that many other definitions of what it is for a labour market to be

flexible have also been given. See Lagos, 1994; Pissarides, 1997; Forstater, 2000


3/24

Daniel Hall

implies that a flexible labour market will rapidly reallocate labour, following a downturn in an

industry, region or in a particular occupation to return the economy to equilibrium

unemployment. The second concept of labour market flexibility describes the institutional

determinants of the level of structural unemployment. Under this description of labour market

flexibility, a flexible labour market implies one that has a low structural level of

unemployment.

Policys aimed at reducing labour market rigidities as a means of reducing unemployment are

broadly part of the Anglo-Saxon model mentioned above. Policys that increase labour

market flexibility may reduce the NAIRU, the structural level of unemployment at which

inflation stabilises7. Theory suggests that a reduction in the factors that enable or encourage

workers to increase their desired real wage for a given level of unemployment will cause a

reduction in the NAIRU. All of these factors are captured by the parameterzin the wage

setting relation. The wage setting relation gives real wage as a function of unemployment and

z, a catchall variable, which stands for all of the factors which affect wages, given the

expected price level and the unemployment rate (Blanchard, Amighini, Giavazzi, 2010).

The wage setting relation:

= ,

,+

The natural rate of unemployment then, is where the wage setting relation is equal to the price

setting relation. The price setting relation represents the limit to the real wage that the

economy can provide, given the productivity of labour and the mark-up of prices over costs

by firms in the economy.

7 For a mathematical derivation of the NAIRU see Appendix 6


4/24

Daniel Hall

The price setting relation:

=

1

1+

The NAIRU, then is given by the point at which real wage demands by workers are equal to

the real wage firms are willing to pay:

!

, =

1

1+

Where Un represents the NAIRU. This implies that, given the mark-up, a reduction in any of

the factors captured byz, will lead to a reduction in the NAIRU8. The OECD (1994)

recommendations to increase the flexibility of labour markets then, were an attempt to reduce

labour market distortions captured byzand reduce the NAIRU. The wage floors created by

these distortions raise the cost of employment, and the consequences of this are particularly

harmful for lower-productivity workers. Flexibility in the labour market, as defined by the

OECD, lowers the cost of hiring these low skilled workers, enabling them to enter

employment.

The United Kingdom and the U.S embody the policy recommendations of the OECD,

operating highly flexible labour markets, and saw declining unemployment levels over the

two decades prior to 20089. However evidence that these policies had any direct effect on

unemployment rates over this period is not robust. Nickell (1998) argues that these policy

changes cannot explain the reduction in time-series unemployment. He argues that although

unemployment was much lower in the 1960s than the 1990s, the rigidity of the labour

market institutions in the two periods were not much different. This idea is supported by

8 For a graphical representation of the wage and price setting relations see Appendix 79 For a graphical representation of U.K and U.S unemployment rates 1988-2008 see Appendix

8


5/24


6/24


7/24

Daniel Hall

Taken from Ball (1999) p.213 Fig. 7

Ball argues that the successful countries were successful due to a combination of non-

monetary demand shocks overheating the economy and also due to limited use of

contractionary policy to slow down inflation during strong periods of output growth. This is

in contrast to the failure countries, which used excessively contractionary monetary policy,

which generally did not ease during recessionary periods, leading to hysteresis. Ball is not

suggesting that the reform of labour market institutions played no role in the reduction in

unemployment rates over time, but simply that it is exaggerated and does more to explain

cross-country differences rather than time series.

Given their usefulness in explaining cross-country unemployment rates (Nickell 1998), labour

market institutions may provide an explanation to why unemployment rates across OECD


8/24

Daniel Hall

countries were affected differently by the Great Recession of 200813. The comparison of peak

to trough changes in unemployment and the decline in output across OECD countries shows

no correlation.

Source: OECD Economic Outlook Database 2010

13 For thedifferencestheimpactoftherecessionhadonrealG.D.PincomparisontoitsaffectonunemploymentseeAppendix10

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

ISLTUR

IRL*

MEX JP

NLUX

SWE

DNK

HUNS

VK ITA

DEU

GBR

NLD

CZE

AUT

KOR E

SPBEL

FRA

USA

CAN

GRC

NOR

CHE

NZL

POL*

AUS

ChangeinOECDharmonisedunemploymentratesasa

percentageoflabourforce,December2007toMarch2010(%)


9/24

Daniel Hall

Source: OECD Economic Outlook Database 2010

Okuns law relates the degree to which the unemployment rate is affected by a deviation in

output growth from its normal rate by a factor. Okuns law:

! !!! = !" !

Where !is the normal rate of output growth (Blanchard, Amighini, Giavazzi, 2010). Here

labour market institutions affect the parameter across countries, and therefore the elasticity

of unemployment with respect to changes in output. The IMF (2010) described the theoretical

impact labour market institutions may have on the parameter in Okuns law. High levels of

EPL14

, the prevalence of temporary contracts and the replacement ratio in particular are

regarded as having a significant impact on the elasticity of unemployment in response to a

recession.

Nordic countries have experienced increases in both inflows and outflows of unemployment,

which Arpaia, A & Curci, N (2010) suggest may be due to relatively low levels of EPL

14 Employment Protection Legislation, see Appendix 11 for the OECDs index of

employment protection legislation.

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

PeaktoTroughChangeinOutpurinthe2008-09recession(%)


10/24

Daniel Hall

combined with an emphasis in ALMPs15. Spain and Ireland on the other hand are

experiencing strong inflows into unemployment. The high level of labor shedding in Spain is

attributed to the prevalence of short term working contracts (IMF, 2008 pp. 8-12). German

unemployment has not changed much since the onset of the Great Recession, which Burda, M.

and Hunt (2011) among others, believe is due to the introduction of subsidized short-term

working hours.

The general fall in unemployment levels in the two decades prior to 2008, is most likely due

to a combination of the introduction of more flexible labour market policys and growth,

leading to the reversal of unemployment hysteresis from the 1970s. This period however, has

challenged the convention that minimal government intervention is the key to a successful

labor market, with many of the Nordic countries standing in stark contrast to this conventional

wisdom.

15 Active Labor Market Policys


11/24

Daniel Hall

Bibliography

Ball, L., (1999) Aggregate Demand and Long-Run Unemployment,Brookings Papers

on Economic Activity, Vol. 1999, No. 2. (1999), pp. 189-251

Blanchard, O. (2005) European Unemployment: The Evolution of Facts and Ideas,

National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 11750,

www.nber.org/papers/w11750

Blanchard, O., Amighini, A., Giavazzi, F., (2010)Macroeconomics A European

Perspective, Prentice Hall, Essex

Blanchard, O., Summers, L. (1986) Hysteresis and the European Unemployment

Problem,NBER Macroeconomics Economics Annual, edited by Stanley Fischer, 1:

15-78

Blanchard, O., Wolfers, J., (2000) Shocks and Institutions and the Rise of European

Unemployment. The Aggregate Evidence.Economic Journal, 110 (1): 1-33, March

2000.

Coats, D. (2006) Whos Afraid of Labour Market Flexibility? The Work Foundation

Forstater, M. (2000) Full Employment and Economic Flexibility,Economic and

Labour Relations Review 11(0) Supplement, pp. 69-88.

Friedman, M., (1968) The Role of Monetary Policy,American Economic Review, Vol.

58, No. 1

Griffiths, A., Wall, S. (2007)Applied Economics, 11th Ed, Prentice Hall, Essex

HMT (2003)EMU and Labour Market Flexibility, HMT, London

Lagos, R.A. (1994) Labour Market Flexibility: What Does it Really Mean?, Cepal

Review 54, (December), pp. 81-95.

Nickell, S. (1998) Unemployment: questions and some answers,Economic Journal,

108, 48, May.


12/24

Daniel Hall

OECD (1994)Jobs Study: facts, analysis and strategies, OECD, Paris

OECD (1998)Jobs Strategy: Progress Report, OECD Working Paper, No.196,

OECD, Paris

OECD, (2004)Employment Outlook, OECD, Paris

Pissarides, C.A. (1997) The Need for Labor-Market Flexibility in European

Economic and Monetary Union, Swedish Economic Policy Review. 4, pp. 513-546.

Schmitt, J., Wadsworth, J. (2005). U.S. and U.K. Labor Market Success in the 1990s.

In: Howell, D., 2005. Fighting Unemployment: The Limits of Free Market Orthodoxy,

Oxford University Press, Oxford

Arpaia, A., Curci, N., (2010) EU Labour Market Behaviour During the Great

Recession,European Economy Economic Papers. No. 405. Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_paper/2010/ecp4

05_en.htm

IMF. (2010) World Economic Outlook: Rebalancing Growth, Washington DC:

International Monetary Fund, chapter 3. Available at:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/

Burda, M. and Hunt, J. (2011) What Explains the German Labor Market Miracle in

the Great Recession?Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, No. 1, pp. 273-319.


13/24

Daniel Hall

Appendix

Appendix 1:

Dataset:

LabourForce

Statistics

(MEI)

Time 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2009 2010 2011

Country

Australia i 7.2 10.9 7.7 5.9 4.2 5.6 5.2 5.1

Austria i 3.6 4.2 4.2 4.3 3.8 4.8 4.4 4.2

Belgium i .. 8.1 9.3 8.2 7 7.9 8.3 7.2

Canada i 7.8 11.4 8.3 7.6 6.1 8.3 8 7.5

Chile i 9.8 6.5 6.4 9.5 7.8 10.8 8.2 7.1

Czech Republic i .. 4.4 6.5 7.8 4.4 6.7 7.3 6.7

Denmark i 6.5 10.7 5.4 5.4 3.4 6 7.5 7.6

Estonia .. .. 9.2 10 5.5 13.8 16.9 12.5

Finland i 4.2 16.3 11.4 9 6.4 8.2 8.4 7.8

France i .. .. .. 8.5 7.4 9.1 9.4 9.3

Germany i 5.9 7.9 9.2 9.6 7.5 7.8 7.1 6

Greece i 7.7 9.7 11.3 9.8 7.7 9.5 12.6 17.7

Hungary i .. 12.1 7.9 5.9 7.8 10 11.2 10.9

Iceland i .. 5.3 2.7 3.4 3 7.2 7.5 7.1

Ireland i 16.2 15.7 7.6 4.8 6.1 11.8 13.7 14.4

Israel i .. .. 8.5 10.7 6.1 7.5 6.6 5.6

Italy i 12 9.7 11.3 8.5 6.7 7.8 8.4 8.4

Japan i 2.5 2.5 4.1 5.3 4 5.1 5.1 4.6

Korea i .. 2.9 7 3.6 3.2 3.7 3.7 3.4

Luxembourg .. .. 2.8 3.7 5.1 5.2 4.4 4.9

Mexico i 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.4 4 5.5 5.3 5.2

Netherlands 5.1.. 4.4 3.7 2.8 3.5 4.5 4.5

New Zealand i 5.7 9.8 7.7 4.8 4.2 6.1 6.5 6.5

Norway i 3.2 6 3.2 4.5 2.6 3.2 3.6 3.3

Poland i .. 14 10.6 19.7 7.1 8.2 9.6 9.6

Portugal i 5.7 5.5 4.9 6.3 7.6 9.5 10.8 12.7

Slovak Republic i .. .. 12.6 17.6 9.5 12 14.4 13.5

Slovenia i.. .. .. 6.7 4.4 5.9 7.3 8.2

Spain i 19.2 22.6 18.6 11.5 11.3 18 20.1 21.6

Sweden i 1.8 8.2 6.5 4.9 6.2 8.3 8.4 7.5

Switzerland i 0.6 3.6 3.3 3.9 3.2 4.1 4.2 3.8

Turkey i 8.4 8.9 6.9 10.5 11 14.1 12 9.8

United Kingdom i 8.6 10.4 6.3 5 5.7 7.6 7.9 8.1

United States i 5.5 6.9 4.5 6 5.8 9.3 9.6 9

Euro area (17countries) .. 10 10.1 8.9 7.5 9.5 10 10.1

European Union(27 countries) .. .. 10.2 9 7 9 9.6 9.6

data extracted on 02 May 2012 11:08 UTC (GMT) from OECD.Stat

Legend:B: Break

E: Estimated value


14/24

Daniel Hall

Appendix 2:

Deriving the original Phillips Curve

The original Phillips curve is based on the assumption that on average inflation will be equal

to 0 and therefore expected inflation is equal to 0.

(1)

!

!= 0

With the aggregate supply relation given in terms of the inflation rate as:

(2)

! = !!+ + !

Where the parameter captures the strength of the effect of unemployment on the wage.

Given expected inflation is equal to 0, (2) becomes:

(3)

= + !

This negative relation between inflation and unemployment is the original Phillips Curve

Appendix 3:

Deriving the Expectations-Augmented Phillips Curve

The assumption that inflation will be 0 on average is relaxed and therefore expected inflation

is given as:

(4)

!!= !!!

If we substitute this into (2) we get:

(5)

! = !!! + + !

In the expectations augmented Phillips curve = 1 as the unemployment rate affects the

change in the inflation rate. So the expectations augmented Phillips curve is given as:

(6)

! !!! = + !


15/24

Daniel Hall

Appendix 4:

Taken from Blanchard (2005)

Appendix 5:

OECD Key Recommendations

Set macroeconomics policy to encourage non-inflationary growth

Enhance the creation and diffusion of technology

Increase working time flexibility

Encourage entrepreneurship and eliminate restrictions on the creation and expansion

of enterprises.

Make wage and labour costs flexible and responsive to local conditions and skill

levels, particularly for young workers.

Reform employment security provisions that inhibit recruitment

Strengthen the emphasis on active labour market policies.

Improve the education and skills of the labour force

2

4

6

8

10

percent

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

actual natural

Figure 2. EU15 actual and constructed natural rate

Source: OECD database and text


16/24

Daniel Hall

Reform unemployment and related benefits and the tax system to improve the

functioning of the job market, whilst not jeopardising societys equity goals.

Enhance product market competition to reduce monopolistic tendencies and weaken

insider-outsider mechanisms, thereby leading to a more dynamic economy

Appendix 6:

Derivation of the NAIRU

The NAIRU is the unemployment rate at which !

!= !

Substitute this into the AS relation, given in terms of inflation:

(1)

! = !!+ + !

to get:

(2)

!=

+

Where Un is the NAIRU. Substituting (2) into the Expectations Augmented Phillips Curve

gives:

! !!! = + (! !)


17/24

Daniel Hall

Real Wage

W/P

Appendix 7:

1. Following a reduction in the replacement-ratio or duration of unemployment benefitscaptured by a fall inz, there is an inward shift of the wage setting relation curve from

WS to WS. The natural rate of unemployment is now found at the equilibriumbetween the price setting relation, PS, and the new wage setting relation WS. There is

a fall in the natural rate of unemployment of NAIRU NAIRU

2. The same shift in the WS curve to WS would occur following a reduction in unionpower, a reduction on the tax placed on earnings and a reduction in the degree ofemployment protection as they lower the wage targeted by workers for a given level of

unemployment.

Unemployment

(W/P)*

NAIRU NAIRU

WS

WS

PS


18/24

Daniel Hall

Appendix 8:

Appendix 9:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Unemployment(%)

Year

UnitedKingdom

UnitedStates

Euroarea(17

countries)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Annual

Unemp

loyment(%)

Year

Australia

Australia

UnitedStates


19/24

Daniel Hall

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Unemployment(%)

Year

Austria

Austria

UnitedStates

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Unemployment(%)

Year

Denmark

Denmark

UnitedStates


20/24

Daniel Hall

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Unemployment(%)

Year

Sweden

Sweden

UnitedStates


21/24

Daniel Hall

Appendix 10:

Cross-countrydifferencesintheimpactoftherecessiononrealGDPareonlyoneofthefactorsdetermininghowsharplyunemploymentrose

a

Change in unemployment rates from peak to troughb

No/small unemployment

impact

(Less than a 1.5 pp increase)

Medium unemployment

impact

(At least a 1.5 pp increase

but less than a 3.5 pp

increase)

Large unemployment

impact

(At least a 3.5 pp

increase)

Change in

GDP from

peak to

troughb

No/small

GDP shock

(Less than a3 pp decline)

Australia New Zealand (H )

Norway

PolandSwitzerland (X,S)

Medium

GDP shock

(At least a 3

but less than

a 7 pp

decline)

Austria (X) Canada (X,L) Spain (L,H)

Belgium (X,S)Czech

Republic(X,S)

United

States(H)

France Greece (L)

Germany (X,P,S) Hungary (X)

Italy (X,P,S) Portugal (X)

Korea (X)United

Kingdom(H)

Netherlands (X)

Slovak Republic (X,P)

Large GDP

shock

(At least a 7

pp decline)

Japan (X,P,S) Denmark (X,L,H,P) Iceland (L,P)

Luxembourg (X,P) Finland (X,P,S) Ireland (C,L,H)

Mexico (X) Sweden (X,L) Turkey (C,P,S)

pp: Percentage-point.

a) Letters in parenthesis following countries names indicate that the recession has been characterised by: C: A decline

of at least 1 percentage point in the share of construction in total value added; H: A decline of housing prices of at

least ten percent; L: At least six quarters between the prior GDP peak and the trough; P: A decline of labour

productivity of at least 5 percentage points; S: At least 1% of total employees participating in short-time work schemes

during 2009; X: A decline in exports as a share of GDP of at least 5 percentage points.

b) Peak and trough defined in terms of real quarterly GDP.

Source: OECD calculations based on OECD Economic Outlookand OECD Quarterly National Accounts Databasesand national sources.


22/24

Daniel Hall

Appendix 11:

OECD indicators on Employment ProtectionVersion 2 - Lastupdated 24-09-2010

Employment protection in OECD and selected non-OECD countries, 2008*Scale from 0 (least restrictions) to 6 (most restrictions)

Protection of

permanent workers

against

(individual)

dismissal

Regulation on

temporary

forms of

employment

Specific

requirements for

collective

dismissal

OECD

employment

protection index

Australia 1.37 0.79 2.88 1.38

Austria 2.19 2.29 3.25 2.41

Belgium 1.94 2.67 4.13 2.61

Brazil 1.49 3.96 0.00 2.27

Canada 1.17 0.22 2.63 1.02

Chile 2.59 2.04 0.00 1.93

China 3.31 2.21 3.00 2.80

Czech Republic 3.00 1.71 2.13 2.32

Denmark 1.53 1.79 3.13 1.91

Estonia 2.27 2.17 3.25 2.39

Finland 2.38 2.17 2.38 2.29

France 2.60 3.75 2.13 3.00

Germany 2.85 1.96 3.75 2.63

Greece 2.28 3.54 3.25 2.97

Hungary 1.82 2.08 2.88 2.11

Iceland 2.12 1.54 3.50 2.11India 3.65 2.67 0.00 2.63

Indonesia 4.29 2.96 0.00 3.02

Ireland 1.67 0.71 2.38 1.39

Israel 2.19 1.58 1.88 1.88

Italy 1.69 2.54 4.88 2.58

Japan 2.05 1.50 1.50 1.73

Korea 2.29 2.08 1.88 2.13

Luxembourg 2.68 3.92 3.88 3.39

Mexico 2.25 4.00 3.75 3.23

Netherlands 2.73 1.42 3.00 2.23

New Zealand 1.54 1.08 0.38 1.16Norway 2.20 3.00 2.88 2.65

Poland 2.01 2.33 3.63 2.41

Portugal 3.51 2.54 1.88 2.84

Russian

Federation 2.79 0.79 1.88 1.80

Slovak Republic 2.45 1.17 3.75 2.13

Slovenia 2.98 2.50 2.88 2.76

South Africa 1.91 0.58 1.88 1.35

Spain 2.38 3.83 3.13 3.11

Sweden 2.72 0.71 3.75 2.06

Switzerland 1.19 1.50 3.88 1.77

Turkey 2.48 4.88 2.38 3.46


23/24

Daniel Hall

United Kingdom 1.17 0.29 2.88 1.09

United States 0.56 0.33 2.88 0.85

Note:

* For France and Portugal, data refer to 2009. This indicator refer to version 3 as defined in the

methodology.Source: OECD. To find out more about the methodology used to calculate the OECD employmentprotection indicators, see www.oecd.org/employment/protection.


24/24

Daniel Hall

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	daniel-hall
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Falling Unemployment Rates in OECD Countries

Documents