Junkcharts finds The Economist's chart on average annual hours worked per person in employment confusing. Great post. I think the concept of “hours worked per capita” is more suitable for making international comparisons. This measure reflects the combined impact of average hours actually worked by people with jobs, employment rates, and the age structure of the population.
The relative position of some countries in the working time stakes is quite different depending on whether working hours are measured on a per worker or a per capita basis. For example, Switzerland comes fourth out of 26 countries in terms of hours per capita although the actual hours spent working by individuals are well below the OECD average. This is explained by the fact that a relatively high proportion of people of working age in Switzerland have a job, while low employment rates explain why per capita hours are relatively low in Greece and Mexico, even though hours per worker are high.[1]
The chart to the right decomposes country differences from the OECD average in working hours per capita in 2002 into three components: the hours effect (i.e. the impact of deviations from the OECD-average hours per worker), the employment effect (i.e. the impact of deviations from the OECD-average employment-population ratio) and the demographic effect (i.e. the impact of deviations from the OECD-average for the share of working-age persons in the total population). It emerges that the hours per worker and employment effects explain almost all of the cross-country variation in hours per capita, while the age structure of the population has relatively little effect. Moreover, OECD countries with below-average annual hours per worker also tend to have above-average employment rates, and vice versa. An obvious question that arises is whether this apparent trade-off reflects a demand-side constraint (see lump of labor fallacy) affecting the total hours of work available or, instead, differences in long-run labour supply behavior (pdf, p. 28).[2]
[1] cp. Clocking in and Clocking out: Recent Trends in Working Hours, OECD Observer, October 2004
[2] OECD Employment Outlook 2004
The relative position of some countries in the working time stakes is quite different depending on whether working hours are measured on a per worker or a per capita basis. For example, Switzerland comes fourth out of 26 countries in terms of hours per capita although the actual hours spent working by individuals are well below the OECD average. This is explained by the fact that a relatively high proportion of people of working age in Switzerland have a job, while low employment rates explain why per capita hours are relatively low in Greece and Mexico, even though hours per worker are high.[1]
The chart to the right decomposes country differences from the OECD average in working hours per capita in 2002 into three components: the hours effect (i.e. the impact of deviations from the OECD-average hours per worker), the employment effect (i.e. the impact of deviations from the OECD-average employment-population ratio) and the demographic effect (i.e. the impact of deviations from the OECD-average for the share of working-age persons in the total population). It emerges that the hours per worker and employment effects explain almost all of the cross-country variation in hours per capita, while the age structure of the population has relatively little effect. Moreover, OECD countries with below-average annual hours per worker also tend to have above-average employment rates, and vice versa. An obvious question that arises is whether this apparent trade-off reflects a demand-side constraint (see lump of labor fallacy) affecting the total hours of work available or, instead, differences in long-run labour supply behavior (pdf, p. 28).[2][1] cp. Clocking in and Clocking out: Recent Trends in Working Hours, OECD Observer, October 2004
[2] OECD Employment Outlook 2004
Mahalanobis - am 2005-09-26 21:39 - Rubrik: EconoSchool
Kaiser (guest) meinte am 29. Sep, 05:46:
Insightful
This idea pops to my mind while I read your entry: how about a Lorenz curve that shows what cumulative % of working hours is put in by what cumulative % of the population?
Mahalanobis antwortete am 29. Sep, 13:34:
Great idea!
I suggest plotting the density instead of the cumulative distribution function or the lorenz curve.Now where do we get the data from? ;-D
jm (guest) meinte am 29. Sep, 16:05:
Under-Reporting of Working Hours in Japan
As a Japanese-fluent American engineer who has been associated with the Japanese electronics industry for more than 30 years, I am deeply disappointed to see so many Western economists reaching false conclusions from the published data on Japanese working hours, which are utterly worthless due to the extremely widespread (indeed, almost universal) requirement there that employees work unpaid overtime. The Japanese call this "sabisu zangyo", "zangyo" being overtime, and "sabisu" meaning "free" (as in, "it's a service"). I first learned of this when working in Japan in the late '70s; a fellow employee commented to me that, "It's awful, we've been working 16-hour days and getting only one day a month off for months now -- and they're holding down overtime." When I asked him to repeat that because I must have misunderstood him -- how could they be working such insane hours if the company was holding down overtime(?) -- he informed me that it's quite common in Japan to go clock out and then come back and work hours more.Two hours a day of sabisu zangyo is not at all unusual in Japan. When times are hard -- as they have been for more than a decade now -- that will rise. It will also rise when times are really good, and there are opportunities to "make hay while the sun shines".
There were some articles in the Wall Street Journal a year or two ago about an IBM Japan employee who was sueing the company over this.
Actual working hours in Japan are much, much longer than reported. The figure given in the Economist's graph is so low as to be ridiculous. The Japanese work many, many more hours than Americans or Europeans.
Mahalanobis antwortete am 29. Sep, 19:00:
Thanks
for your input! The OECD notes (OECD Employment Outlook 2004, p. 313): "Data for total employment [for Japan] are Secretariat estimates based on data from the Monthly Labour Survey of Establishments, ...". But the numbers are actually the same as those provided by the OECD. So it really seems that no adjustments are made by the OECD.
