mobility in europe 2013 - european commission

Month Year 1

Mobility in Europe 2013

Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Mobility in Europe 2013

November 2012 2

This publication has been prepared by the European Job Mobility Laboratory (EJML), which is a network of academics and labour market practitioners established to support the Commission’s work in mobility issues by providing capacity for research and as a vehicle for testing and validating labour market interventions and experiences with policy makers and practitioners alike. The work is co-ordinated by a consortium of Applica Sprl (Brussels) and Ismeri Europa (Rome). For more information on the activities of the EJML see: http://www.mobilitypartnership.eu

The work of the EJML is supported by the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS (2007-2013).

This programme is implemented by the European Commission. It was established to financially support the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the employment, social affairs and equal opportunities area, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the Europe 2020 Strategy goals in these fields.

The seven-year Programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of appropriate and effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA-EEA and EU candidate and pre-candidate countries.

For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/progress.

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible for use of any information contained in this publication.

Editors Andy Fuller (Alphametrics Ltd., UK) & Terry Ward (Applica Sprl., Belgium).

Researchers & contributors Duncan Coughtrie (Alphametrics Ltd), Erhan Ozdemir (Applica Sprl), Fadila Sanoussi (Applica Sprl).

© European Union, 2013

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

http://www.mobilitypartnership.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/progress


November 2012 3

Table of contents Executive summary ............................................................................................ 6

The labour market context for mobility .................................................................. 6 Recent trends in labour mobility ........................................................................... 7 Connecting people to work - jobseekers, vacancies and the role of the PES ............... 11

Section I: The labour market context for mobility ............................................ 15 European labour markets fail to recover: continued decline in employment ..... 16

Economic context .............................................................................................. 16 Employment trends since the start of the crisis ...................................................... 19

Section II: Recent trends in labour mobility ..................................................... 28 Labour movements between EU Member States – recent developments .......... 29

Labour flows between the EU12 and EU15 during the crisis ..................................... 29 Employment rates over the crisis period ............................................................... 31

Integration of migrants from within and outside the EU .................................. 34 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 34 Age break-down of migrants ............................................................................... 36 Are migrants more or less likely to be in work than the domestic population? ............ 37 Has the employment of migrants been hit disproportionately by the crisis? ............... 39 Are migrants more likely to be unemployed than native-born? ................................ 41 Are migrants more likely to be in temporary jobs than native-born? ......................... 42 Are migrants more likely to be in part-time jobs than native-born? .......................... 45 Do migrants tend to be over-qualified for the jobs they do? .................................... 47 Are migrants more likely to have been made redundant than native-born? ............... 50 Are migrants likely to remain unemployed longer than native-born? ......................... 52 Are migrants unemployed more likely to be registered at employment offices? .......... 54 Are migrants more likely to use the PES to find a job than native-born? ................... 56 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................... 57

Section III: Connecting people to work - jobseekers, vacancies, and the role of PES ................................................................................................................... 59

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 60 Basis for the analysis ......................................................................................... 61 Characteristics of jobseekers ............................................................................... 61 Characteristics of young jobseekers ..................................................................... 66 Jobsearch methods ............................................................................................ 74 Registration and contact with the public employment services (PES) ........................ 79 Interaction between jobseekers and the PES ......................................................... 82 PES interaction with young people ....................................................................... 83 Vacancies and matching ..................................................................................... 88 PES role in placement......................................................................................... 95


November 2012 4

List of figures Figure 1 Change in real GDP, employment rate and unemployment rate, EU-28, 2003Q2-2013Q2

........................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 2 Population by status and activity rate (%), 15-64, EU-28, 2003Q2-2012Q2 ............... 17 Figure 3 Change in employment, 15-64, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2 .......................................... 19 Figure 4 Change in employment by working time (%), 15-64, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2 ............ 20 Figure 5 Change in employment by sector, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2 ...................................... 22 Figure 6 Change in employment by age group, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2 ................................. 24 Figure 7 Change in employment by age group and sector (Index 2008Q2=100), 15-64, EU-28,

2008Q2-2013Q2 ................................................................................................. 25 Figure 8 Long-term unemployment of men and women by country of birth in the EU15, 2008 and

2012 (% total unemployed) ................................................................................. 52 Figure 9 Unemployment rate by age-group, EU-28, 2004-2012 (%) ...................................... 61 Figure 10 Jobseekers by labour market status (%population aged 15-64) and the unemployment

rate (% labour force), 2012 ................................................................................. 62 Figure 11 Jobseeking amongst employed persons (2012) in relation to labour turnover (% of

employment in previous year, average 2002-2007) ................................................. 63 Figure 12 Jobseeking amongst inactive persons in relation to the activity rate, 2012 ................. 63 Figure 13 Distribution of jobseekers by age, 2012 (% total jobseekers) ................................... 64 Figure 14 Proportion of youth and prime-age people seeking work by labour market status,

education level and gender, EU-28, 2012 (%) ........................................................ 67 Figure 15 Young jobseekers by situation, 2012 (% population aged 15-24) .............................. 69 Figure 16 Number of young jobseekers by situation, EU-28, 2008-2012 (index 2008=100) ........ 71 Figure 17 Proportion of the youth population (15-24) that is NEET (and has not already found

work to start later) by jobseeker status, 2012 (%) .................................................. 72 Figure 18 Proportion of the youth population that is NEET and not seeking work by desire to work,

2012 (%) ........................................................................................................... 72 Figure 19 Youth population in the EU by situation, 2012 ......................................................... 73 Figure 20 Methods used by jobseekers to find work in the last four weeks by labour market status,

EU-28, 2012 (% jobseekers) ................................................................................ 75 Figure 21 Average number of methods used by unemployed jobseekers to find work, 2012 ........ 76 Figure 22 Use of different job search methods, EU-28, 2004-2012 (%jobseekers) ..................... 77 Figure 23 Use of the PES in job-search in relation to the proportion of unemployed in the

jobseeker population, 2012 .................................................................................. 78 Figure 24 Jobseekers registered or in contact with PES in the last four weeks, 2012 (% total

jobseekers) ........................................................................................................ 79 Figure 25 Jobseekers either registered or in contact with PES in the last four weeks, 2012 (% total

jobseekers) ........................................................................................................ 80 Figure 26 Proportion of jobseekers interacting with the PES by labour market status, 2012 (%) .. 83 Figure 27 Proportion of jobseekers interacting with the PES by age group, 2012 (%) ................. 83 Figure 28 Interaction between PES and young jobseekers by situation, 2012 (%) ..................... 84 Figure 29 Proportion of young NEETs not seeking work but registered with the PES by desire to

work, 2012 (%) .................................................................................................. 86 Figure 30 Proportion of the youth population (15-24) that is NEET and has no interaction with the

PES, 2012 (%) ................................................................................................... 87 Figure 31 Young NEETs and contact with the PES, EU-28, 2012 .............................................. 87 Figure 32 Job vacancy rate and unemployment rate, 2013Q2 ................................................. 90 Figure 33 Beveridge curve, EU-28, 2008Q1-2013Q2 .............................................................. 91 Figure 34 Share of employment occupied by recent recruits, 2012 (%) .................................... 96 Figure 35 PES involvement in job placement by age, 2012 (% recent recruits) ......................... 97

List of boxes Box 1 Aggregation of sectors ........................................................................................ 21 Box 2 Important notes about the data by sector ............................................................. 21 Box 3 Definition and identification of the situation of youth .............................................. 68


November 2012 5

List of tables Table 1 Change in employment compared to the same period in the previous year (%), 15-64,

EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2 ...................................................................................... 18 Table 2 Change in employment by sector and by country (1000s), 2008Q2-2013Q2 ............... 23 Table 3 Change in employment by working-time, age and sector, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2 (%)

........................................................................................................................ 26 Table 4 People aged 15-24 and 25-49 born outside the EU15 living in EU15 Member States as %

total population in these age groups, 2008-2012 .................................................... 30 Table 5 Employment rates by country of birth in selected EU Member States, 2007-2012 ........ 32 Table 6 Division of men aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 ............................ 36 Table 7 Division of women aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 (%) .................. 37 Table 8 Employment rates of men aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, actual and age-

adjusted, 2012 ................................................................................................... 38 Table 9 Employment rates of women aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, actual and

age-adjusted, 2012 ............................................................................................. 38 Table 10 Changes in employment rates of men aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, 2008-

2012 (Percentage point change) ........................................................................... 40 Table 11 Changes in employment rates of women aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15,

2008-2012 (Percentage point change) ................................................................... 40 Table 12 Unemployment of men by country of birth in the EU15, actual and age adjusted, 2012

(% men aged 15-64) ........................................................................................... 41 Table 13 Unemployment of women by country of birth in the EU15, actual and age adjusted,

2012 (% women aged 15-64) ............................................................................... 42 Table 14 Temporary working of men aged 25-64 by country of birth, 2012 ............................. 44 Table 15 Temporary working of women aged 25-64 by country of birth, 2012 ......................... 44 Table 16 Part-time employment of men aged 25-64 by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 ........ 46 Table 17 Part-time employment of women, 25-64, by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 ......... 47 Table 18 Proportion of men and women aged 25-64 with tertiary education employed as

managers, professionals and technicians (ISCO 1-3) by country of birth, 2012 (% total tertiary-educated} .............................................................................................. 48

Table 19 Proportion of men and women aged 25-64 with tertiary education employed as skilled and semi-skilled worker (ISCO 7+8) and as sales and service workers (ISCO 5), by country of birth, 2012 (% total tertiary-educated} .................................................. 49

Table 20 Proportion of men and women aged 25-64 with tertiary education employed in elementary occupations (ISCO 9) by country of birth, 2012 (% total tertiary-educated) ........................................................................................................................ 50

Table 21 Proportion of men and women aged 25-64 not in work and having left their job with the previous 8 years who were dismissed or made redundant by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 (%) ................................................................................................. 51

Table 22 Long-term unemployment of men and women by country of birth in the EU15 Member States, 2012 (% Total unemployed out of work for a year or more) .......................... 53

Table 23 Changes in the proportion of men and women unemployed out of work for a year or more by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 (Percentage point change) ...................... 54

Table 24 Proportion of men unemployed aged 25-64 registered at employment offices and receiving benefits by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 .......................................... 55

Table 25 Proportion of women unemployed aged 25-64 registered at employment offices and receiving benefits by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 .......................................... 56

Table 26 Proportion of men and women aged 25-64 moving into a job within last year who found it with help of PES by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 (%) ................................... 57

Table 27 Proportion of the population seeking work by labour market status and age, 2012 ...... 65 Table 28 Proportion of youth seeking work by labour market status and age, 2012 .................. 66 Table 29 Proportion of youth (15-24) seeking work by situation (%), EU-28, 2012 ................... 70 Table 30 Reasons for not seeking work by age (% NEET not seeking work), 2012 .................... 74 Table 31 Registration with the PES – comparison of survey data (LFS) and PES own

administrative data, 2011 .................................................................................... 81 Table 32 PES interaction with young jobseekers by situation, EU-28, 2012 .............................. 85 Table 33 Change in the number of job vacancies, 2008Q2-2013Q2 (%) .................................. 89


November 2012 6

Executive summary

The labour market context for mobility

European labour markets fail to recover: continued decline in employment

The five years from mid-2003 to mid-2008 saw a period of sustained economic growth and substantial net job creation in the EU with the numbers in work rising by an average of more than 3 million per year to reach a peak of 219 million. This growth came to an abrupt halt as the economic and financial crisis impacted progressively across Europe from mid-2008 onwards. Although there have since been some glimmers of recovery, in terms of both economic and employment growth, these have not been sustained.

The latest available data show that the EU economy declined further in the 12 months to mid-2013, albeit by a small amount (0.2% in real terms), and the numbers in work fell by another 900 thousand. Five years from the onset of the crisis there are 212.5 million people in employment across the EU – some 6.5 million fewer than before the crisis hit – and the unemployment rate has risen to a new high of 10.9%.

The impact of the crisis has, however, been far from uniform. Although the numbers in work are down in two thirds of Member States, they are up in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Malta, Austria, Hungary and Sweden. There have also been important structural changes in European labour markets with the crisis having differential impacts on different sectors, on different groups of workers (e.g. by sex and by age), and on the balance between part- and full-time work. It is these shifts that are the main focus of analysis in the chapter.

Continued decline in full-time employment offset by growth in part-time employment

The number of people in work in the EU fell by 3% between mid-2008 and mid-2013 but these job losses were concentrated amongst people working full-time. The number of full-time jobs fell by 5.5% whilst the number working part-time increased progressively each year to be 7.8% higher at the end of the period. Part-time employment grew in all Member States except Croatia, Poland and Sweden and the proportion of people in employment working part-time has risen from 17.6% to a new high of 19.6%.

In all but one of the seven Member States that have seen some employment growth since the onset of the crisis, the numbers working part-time rose significantly more than the numbers working full-time. Only in Sweden can recent job growth be wholly attributed to expanding full-time employment. Meanwhile, in all but two of the twenty-one Member States where employment declined (Poland and Croatia), increased part-time employment offset some of the full-time decline.

Job losses concentrated in construction and industry, some growth in communal services

The sectors hardest hit by the recession were construction and industry, where employment declined by 19.4% and 11.1% respectively between mid-2008 and mid-2013. At the other extreme, communal services is the only sector to have experienced a continuous increase in employment over the period, rising by 4.8% overall. However, the rate of growth has slowed, placing some uncertainty on future expansion.

The changes by sector are heavily influenced by a few of the larger Member States. Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom, for example, together accounted for just over 40% of jobs lost across the EU in industry and 60% of those in construction. Meanwhile, just over 70% of the overall gain in communal services derives from increases in Germany, the United Kingdom and Poland.


November 2012 7

Greatest impact on younger workers; older workers have fared relatively well

Despite the overall decline in employment between mid-2008 and mid-2013, the number of people aged 50-64 in work rose each year to increase by 6.3 million or 12% over the period and the employment rate of this age-group rose from 56.5% to 59.3%. Job losses were therefore concentrated among those aged under 50, such that by mid-2013 the number of prime-age workers (25-49) was down by 8.5 million and the number of youth workers (15-24) by 4.4 million. Since young people contribute far less to overall employment the relative impact was more severe with the number in work declining 19.3% compared to 5.9% for the prime-age group. As a result, the employment rate of young people fell from 37.2% to just 32.1% and that of prime-age workers fell from 80.4% to 77.1%.

Interestingly, only older workers benefited from the job growth in expanding sectors. The numbers of youth and prime-age workers declined each year in almost all sectors between mid-2008 and mid-2013, both failing to benefit from the gains in communal services. In contrast, the number of older workers rose in all sectors except construction and agriculture, even increasing in industry (0.5 million), which was so hard hit. The largest gains were, however, in communal services (3.8 million).

Full-time employment declined across all sectors for both youth and prime-age workers whilst for older workers there were increases in all sectors except construction and agriculture. Meanwhile, the numbers of prime-age and older workers employed part-time increased in all sectors except agriculture (decline for both age groups) and industry (decline for prime-age) thereby adding to the full-time gains for older workers and offsetting the declines for prime-age workers. In contrast, the number of young people working part-time fell in all sectors except communal services, compounding the declines in full-time employment. In other words, only the younger age-group failed to benefit from the growth in part-time employment.

Recent trends in labour mobility

Labour movements between EU Member States – recent developments

Before the crisis, there were large-scale movements from the EU-12 (i.e. the 12 countries that joined the EU between 2004 and 2007), to the 15 countries which were members before 2004 (EU-15). These movements intensified following the accession of 10 countries in 2004 (EU-10) and were particularly large into the UK and Ireland, which removed labour market restrictions for people from these countries as soon as they joined the Union. (There were much smaller, though still significant, movements into Sweden, which also removed restrictions immediately.) At the same time, there were large-scale movements into Spain, Italy and Greece, as well as Cyprus, from Bulgaria and Romania (EU-2) even though these did not enter the EU until the beginning of 2007.

Focusing on the countries in which migrants are most important as a share of the population – the UK and Ireland for those coming from the EU-10 and Spain, Italy and Cyprus for those from the EU-2 – the analysis looks at how migration flows have changed over the crisis period. Note that the analysis excludes Germany because the available data do not include a breakdown by country of birth, which is the characteristic used to identify migrants – whether from inside or outside the EU - throughout this chapter.

In the initial crisis period (2008-2010), the data indicate that despite the recession there was a continued increase in the number of people from the EU-12 living in the EU-15, though in most cases, on a slightly smaller scale than before. (Note that changes in the stock of non-nationals living in a country represent the net result of flows both in and out of the country concerned and do not say anything about the scale of these flows, analysis


November 2012 8

of which may be found elsewhere1.) Young people (aged 15-24) from the EU-10, however, are an exception to the overall trend in that many of these seem to have left Ireland and the UK, either to return home or to go other countries.

In 2011, there was a more widespread slowdown in the rate of increase of both young and prime-age (aged 25-49) workers coming from both EU-10 and EU-2 living in the EU-15, which suggests a reduction in inward flows into the EU15 or an increase in outward (probably mostly return) flows or perhaps both. This was especially the case as regards young people from the EU-10 in Ireland, many of whom seem to have left, but it was less the case in the UK, where net inward migration resumed, while there also seems to have been some movement of young people from the EU-2 out of Spain.

This slowdown continued in 2012, particularly amongst young people. The relative number of people aged 15-24 from the EU-10 declined in both Ireland and the UK while the relative numbers coming from the EU-2 were much the same in 2012 as in 2011 in Spain and Italy but higher in Cyprus. For prime-age workers, there was little change in the relative numbers from the EU-10 in Ireland or in the UK in 2012 while there seems to have been net inward movement of Bulgarians and Romanians into Italy and Cyprus but a net outward movement in Spain.

The fact that people moving from the EU-12 countries into EU-15 Member States largely do so to find a job tends to mean that in many of the Member States concerned, they are more likely to be employed than the domestic population. In some cases, however, the situation has been changed by the crisis and by the resulting lack of job opportunities, which seem to have affected both men and women from the EU-10, and from the EU-2 especially, more than the native part of the population. The fact that mobile workers have been finding it harder to find jobs abroad is likely to reduce incentives for others to follow and, perhaps, to drive some to return home or move to another country.

Integration of migrants from within and outside the EU

Migration into the EU has been a significant source of labour over the long-term. Indeed, over the past two decades or so, it is the main reason why the working-age population in the EU, and with it the labour force, has continued to grow, compensating for a slowdown in the growth of the domestic population. Over this period, and in the last 10 years especially, this inward migration has been accompanied by large-scale movements within the EU, particularly from east to west following the accession of countries from Central and Eastern Europe in 2004.

From an economic perspective, labour mobility can be seen as both a response to labour market imbalances – of a shortage of jobs in one place coinciding with a shortage of labour in others – and as a means of helping to correct these imbalances and contribute to a better functioning European economy. From a social perspective, there are likely to be gains to the people moving in terms of their income and living conditions as well as perhaps to the people they leave behind if they send remittances back or if their departure makes it easier for other people to find jobs.

Ultimately, however, the well-being of those moving both within and from outside the EU, and indeed their potential income and job prospects, depends to a large extent on how well they are able to integrate into the society which they are moving into and how far they are treated equitably. The chapter investigates this by looking at the situation of both those moving within the EU and migrants from outside in relation to the domestic population – i.e. those born in the country concerned (native born). The analysis also looks at how the situation has changed over the crisis period to see if migrants have been more or less affected by the higher levels of unemployment.

1 See for example, EU Employment and Social Situation, Quarterly review, June 2013 pp 38-51:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=10312&langId=en



November 2012 9

Migrants tend to be younger and female

Migrants tend to be younger than people born in the country in which they live, particularly those moving within the EU. For example, 59% of men of working-age (15 to 64) born in the EU-10 and living the EU-15 were aged under 35 in 2012 compared to 38% of native born. For migrants coming from outside the EU there is little difference in the proportion aged under 35 but there are fewer migrants in the older age bracket (55-64) so that the group is still younger overall. The different age-structures have to be taken into account when comparing employment rates since these are invariably lower amongst those aged 55-64 who account for a larger proportion of the native born population than of migrants. Analysis of both employment rates and unemployment therefore uses age-adjusted rates to avoid this distortion.

Perhaps unexpectedly, migrants are more likely to be women than men, especially in the case of those moving from the EU12 countries. On average, in 2012, women made up around half of those aged 15-64 who were native-born in the EU15 but they accounted for 56-57% of those born in the EU12 countries but now living in the EU15 and 52% of those born outside the EU.

Employment situation of migrants varies with region of origin

People moving from the EU10 to live in the EU15 are more likely to be in work than native born whilst the reverse is true for those coming from the EU2 or for migrants from outside the EU. These differences apply for both men and women but are more pronounced for men. The employment rate for native born men in the EU15 in 2012 was 69% whilst the age-adjusted rate was much higher (75%) for those coming from the EU10 but much lower (62%) for those coming from the EU2 and from outside the EU.

The lower employment rates for migrants coming from the EU2 and from outside the seen in 2012 are at least in part a result of the crisis, which has had a differential impact on the various groups. Although employment rates declined generally between 2008 and 2012, people coming from the EU2 or from outside the EU were affected far more than other groups. For men, employment rates of native born and those from the EU10 fell by 4.6 and 4.1 percentage points (pp) respectively whilst rates for those from the EU2 and form outside the EU fell by 13.8 and 7.7 pp respectively. Employment rates of women fell far less than men overall and the differences between groups were also less pronounced. Whilst the employment rate of native born women in the EU15 fell by just 0.9 pp over the period, the rate for women born in the EU10 fell by 2.1 pp but rates for those from the EU2 and from outside the EU fell considerably more – by 3.8 and 4.5 pp respectively.

As a counterpart to employment rates it follows that migrants, at least those from the EU2 and from outside the EU, are more likely to be unemployed than those who are native-born. There is not, however, a one-to-one relationship between employment rates and unemployment since migrants tend to be less likely to be economically inactive than native-born. In 2012, the proportions of men and women of working age from the EU2 and from outside the EU who were unemployed were much higher than those of people who were native-born. For those coming from the EU10, unemployment was marginally lower (than for native-born) for men but slightly higher for women.

Migrants more likely to be in temporary or part-time jobs

Migrants are more likely to be employed on a temporary contract than those born in the country in which they live, even after excluding those aged under 25, among whom temporary working is particularly prevalent. In 2012, 8.9% of native-born men aged 25-64 employed in the EU15 worked under a temporary contract. This share increases to 10.8% for men from the EU10, but is dramatically higher for men from the EU2 (27.9%)


November 2012 10

and from outside the EU (17.0%)2. The picture is similar for women, except that the rate of temporary contracts among women from the EU-10 is the same as for the native-born (11.2%).

A similar situation applies to the incidence of part-time work. For men, the proportion working part-time was similar amongst native-born and those born in the EU10 (6.8% and 6.9% respectively) but was higher for men from the EU-2 (9.9%) and higher still for those from outside the EU (13.2%). For women, the picture is much the same, except that the proportion of those from the EU10 working part-time (35.8%) also exceeds that of native-born (33.6%).

Changes over the crisis period are difficult to interpret for temporary work because, on the one hand, job losses were disproportionately concentrated on those employed on fixed-term contracts and, on the other hand, recruitment – where it has occurred – has often been on the basis of temporary rather than permanent contracts because of the uncertainty attached to future economic prospects. For part-time work the situation is clearer. As shown in the opening section to the report, the relative incidence of part-time work has increased significantly in most countries over the crisis period, and it has risen more among migrants than among the domestic population.

Migrants are often over-qualified for the jobs they do

Migrants are more likely to hold jobs which are not in line with their educational attainment levels. This can be seen by focusing on those with tertiary-level education – i.e. with a university degree or equivalent – and examining their jobs compared with those of native-born. The evidence suggests that in most EU-15 countries, a great many tertiary-educated migrants are in jobs which do not require the level of qualification that they have, a significant number of them, especially women, are in elementary manual jobs which demand little in the way of qualifications at all. The extent of over-qualification is particularly evident for men and women from the EU-2, a large number of whom are employed in manual jobs in the case of men (over half on average across the EU-15) or in manual and sales and service jobs, many of them working in domestic services, in the case of women (around 45%).

Migrants at greater risk of redundancy but take less time to find another job

A larger proportion of men of working-age from the EU-10 (36%), from the EU-2 (35%) and from outside the EU (34%) who were out of work (either unemployed or inactive) in the EU-15 in 2012, and who had been employed previously, had been made redundant or had been dismissed (rather than leaving a job of their own volition or because a fixed-term contract came to an end) than native-born (28%). The picture is less uniform for women – those coming from the EU10 were less likely to have been made redundant or dismissed than native-born women (16% as against 21%), whilst those from the EU-2 and from outside the EU were more likely to have been affected in this way (28% and 22% respectively).

Once out of work, mobile workers from the EU-10 and the EU-2 who become unemployed tend, on average, to remain out of work for less time than those born in the EU-15 country in question. The proportion of the unemployed – both men and women - who have been out of work for a year or more (long-term unemployed) was, therefore, smaller for these groups in 2012 than for the native-born and for those coming from outside the EU. (This remains the case, it should be noted, even if allowance is made for the fact that some of the migrants who are unemployed may have been in the EU-15 country for only a relatively short time and so are less likely to have been out of work for a year or more.) The differences have, however, reduced since the crisis. Whilst the incidence of long-term unemployment has increased for all groups, the rise has been

2 This difference is partly due to the relative concentration of men from the EU2 in Spain, where the share of

temporary working is large, but it is nevertheless the case that the share is larger than for native-born men in all countries apart from Italy and Austria.


November 2012 11

greater for all groups of migrants but especially those from the EU2 (increase of more than 25 percentage points for both men and women).

Migrants less likely to access help from the PES

Perhaps not surprisingly, given that they are less likely to be fully informed of the services on offer or the procedures to access these, fewer migrants than native-born register with the public employment services (PES) to get assistance when unemployed. While at least three-quarters of both men and women native-born unemployed are registered with the PES, the proportion for mobile workers from the EU10 and EU2 is more like two thirds, though the figures vary by sex and by region of origin. Those that do register are also less likely to receive (unemployment) benefits than their native-born counterparts.

A relatively small number of men and women in the EU15 moving into a new job are helped by the PES to find it. In 2012, only just over 6% of men and 7% of women aged 25-64 born in the country in which they live reported receiving help from the PES to find a job that they took up in the past year. The proportion is much the same for men from the EU-10 but significantly higher for women from the same region (11%). People coming from the EU2 are much less likely, however, to have had assistance from the PES in finding work (3% of men and 2% of women)3. For those coming from outside the EU, on the other hand, the proportion helped by the PES was similar to that for the native-born.

More support needed for migrants moving within the EU

Overall, the evidence suggests that in many countries migrants tend to be disadvantaged relative to the domestically-born population in the labour market, have been affected more by the tightening labour market conditions over the crisis period and might, therefore, benefit from additional support measures. Whilst migrants from outside the EU can be obliged to participate in preparatory programmes to support integration (e.g. language or basic orientation courses) this is not the case for EU citizens, despite an equivalent need, because the principles of free movement4 mean that they cannot be treated any differently from nationals. There is a need, therefore to consider how to more proactively include intra-EU migrants in such courses on a voluntary basis5.

Connecting people to work - jobseekers, vacancies and the role of the PES The Europe 2020 target of getting 75% of people aged 20-64 into employment by 2020 represents a significant challenge, particularly bearing in mind the persistent fragility of European economies and labour markets. It will require not only significant job creation but also more efficient labour markets in which there is better matching of supply and demand. Public employment services (PES) have a key role to play in this respect, not only as key service providers but also as conductors, working with other actors to ensure co-ordinated, effective, efficient and inclusive service delivery.

This section of the report looks at the supply side of the market, investigating who is looking for work, how they go about this and, in particular, the extent to which they use the PES. The analysis pays particular attention to the situation of young people, who are

3 These figures should not really be compared with the EU averages for native-born men and women since

those from the EU2 disproportionately live in Spain and Italy where the use of the PES to find a job is less common than elsewhere even among the native-born. Nevertheless, the figures are less than for the native-born in most countries for which the data are reasonably reliable and in Spain and Italy, they average only around 1% for men and women as opposed to around 3% for the native-born.

4 As laid out in Article 45 of the Treaty of the European Union. 5 For further discussion see: The integration needs of mobile EU citizens: impediments and opportunities,

Collett, E., Migration Policy Institute Europe, 2013: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/integration-needs-mobile-eu-citizens-impediments-and-opportunities

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/integration-needs-mobile-eu-citizens-impediments-and-opportunities

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/integration-needs-mobile-eu-citizens-impediments-and-opportunities


November 2012 12

of particular concern due to the extreme levels of unemployment confronting them at the present time. With Youth Guarantee schemes high on the political agenda, and PES liable to be central to delivery of these schemes, the analysis also considers the key question of how to reach those that don’t actively seek support and looks at the level of PES contact with young people in different situations.

Using data from the European Labour Force Survey (LFS), the analysis defines jobseekers to be all people who are actively seeking work – not just the unemployed, but also people who are looking for work but are formally considered as inactive because they are not immediately available (e.g. because of caring responsibilities or because they are still completely education/training), as well as people who are already in work but are seeking either an alternative or an additional position. Indeed, the figures used here actually exclude a small part of those normally considered as unemployed – i.e. those who are unemployed but have found a job to start later.

In the analysis these jobseekers are treated in three main groups according to their labour market status: unemployed, inactive and employed. The first two are looking to move into work while the third is seeking an alternative or an additional job.

Characteristics of jobseekers

In 2012 around one in ten people of working age (15 to 64) in the EU was seeking work (10.7%), amounting to a little over 35.7 million people. Just over two thirds of these (68.0%) of these were unemployed, a quarter employed (26.6%) and just a small proportion (5.3%) were inactive. The jobseeking rate ranged from 5.3% in Austria to 22.2% in Spain with higher levels typically in countries with higher levels of unemployment. However, in countries such as Sweden, the UK, and Finland – and to a lesser extent Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg - the overall level of jobseeking is high despite relatively low levels of unemployment. This is a result of higher than average levels of jobseeking amongst employed people.

Young jobseekers are often looking to make the first transition from education or training to work that can be so important in shaping a future career. Indeed, a key objective of Youth Guarantee is to avoid young people falling into the situation of being not in employment, education, or training (NEET). In 2012, 54.7% of all young people seeking work in the EU were NEET, whilst 25.1% were in education and training and the remaining 20.1% were in work. NEETs constitute the largest share of youth jobseekers in all but four Member States - Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland, where more are still in education.

However, not all NEETs are jobseekers. In 2012, 12.1% of young people in the EU were NEET (and had not found a job to go start soon) and this splits further into 7.2% of youth who were NEET and seeking work and 5.0% of youth who were NEET and not seeking work. In the latter group 43.9% indicated that they would like to work, despite not actively seeking work, and nearly a fifth (17.1%) claimed that the reason for not looking was that they believe no work was available to them.

Methods used by jobseekers to find work and use of the PES

The LFS identifies twelve possible methods that jobseekers might use to find work or an additional/alternative job6. In 2012, the most widely used method was to study advertisements in newspapers, journals (72.3%), two-thirds (66.4%) used personal contacts such as friends, relatives and work contacts, while almost six in ten (58.4%) applied directly to potential employers. The public employment services were contacted by just under half of all jobseekers (45.6%) but only one in five used a private agency (21.1%).

6 See the EU-LFS database user guide 2012

http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/LFSuserguide/EULFS_Database_UserGuide_2012.pdf




November 2012 13

The twelve methods can be grouped into four categories related to the extent to which the jobseekers exploit intermediaries: contacted public employment services (PES); contacted private employment agencies (PRES); personal contacts (i.e. asked friends, relatives, trade unions, etc.); and self-initiative. Use of the PRES, self-initiative and personal contacts increased steadily between 2004 and 2012. In contrast, the proportion of jobseekers using the PES has declined from 53.5% to 45.6%, despite a short lived increase between 2008 and 2009 when the crisis caused large scale job losses.

However, it is important not to be misled by the statistics and assume that these changes represent a shift in jobseeking habits and, in particular, a reduction in the use of the PES. Rather, the changes observed are to a large extent a reflection of the changing distribution of jobseekers around the EU, particularly since the crisis. For example, between 2004 and 2012 the share of all EU jobseekers coming from Germany, where use of the PES is relatively high (c.75% on average), declined from 18.4% to 10.9% whilst the contribution of jobseekers from Spain, where use of the PES is relatively low (33% on average), rose from 9.9% to 19.3%. Inevitably, therefore, the overall share of jobseekers using the PES has fallen.

PES contact with jobseekers

In order to get assistance from the PES, it is normally necessary to be registered with them, though registration does not necessarily mean that the PES is used as a job-search method. For example, some people may register in order to qualify for benefits but undertake their job-search entirely through self-initiative. Indeed, in 2012 57.4% of jobseekers reported being registered with the PES but only 45.6% reported contacting the PES in the last four weeks in order to seek work.

Moreover, not all that contacted the PES are registered so, overall, 64.2% of jobseekers were either registered with the PES or contacted them to look for work. Unsurprisingly, interaction in either way is highest among unemployed jobseekers (76.5%), followed by inactive jobseekers (62.4%) and then employed jobseekers (33.0%). Interestingly, interaction with the PES increases with age - 57.4% of young jobseekers, 64.3% of prime age jobseekers and 71.7% of older jobseekers had some form of interaction with the PES. This pattern holds in just under two thirds of Member States but the gaps are particularly large in countries such as Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands, all of which are cases where relatively high proportions of young jobseekers are still in education so that PES contact with this age-group is liable to be limited.

This point is illustrated further when focusing on young jobseekers. In 2012, PES have some form of interaction with almost three quarters of young NEET jobseekers (74.2%) but only half this level amongst young jobseekers still in education (37.3%) or in work (36.6%). This pattern holds, albeit to different extents, in all Member States despite much variation in the overall levels of interaction.

The above means that still a quarter of young NEET jobseekers appear to have no contact with the PES. The situation of young NEETs who are not seeking work (and who had not already found a job to start later) is, however, of more concern. In 2012, only 16.9% of this group – more than 40% of which said they would like to work - had any interaction with the PES.

Youth guarantee schemes aim to ensure that all young people get a quality offer of education, training or work within four months of leaving school or becoming unemployed. Although delivery will be a concerted action with a range of actors, PES will have a central role in implementation. The figures above suggest that it will be a significant challenge to reach all those in need. In 2012, 5.8% of the population aged 15-24 was NEET and had no interaction with the PES and just over two thirds of these were not even seeking work. This challenge is particularly pronounced in countries such as Bulgaria, Romania and Italy where over 10% of youth were NEET and had no interaction with the PES.


November 2012 14

Vacancies and matching

Data on the number of job vacancies are notoriously difficult to collect in a way that adequately covers the entire job market or ensures comparability between countries and this has to be taken into account when interpreting figures. Nevertheless, data on the stock of vacancies published by Eurostat, which are based on a survey of companies in each country, indicate that for the ten countries for which a time-series is available, the number of open positions that employers are looking to fill fell by around 50% between mid-2008 and mid-2013.

Eurostat also publishes data on the job vacancy rate, which measures the number of vacancies relative to the total number of posts7. In the initial phase of the crisis, from the second quarter of 2008 until the end of 2009, the job vacancy rate in the EU fell from 1.9% to 1.2% whilst the unemployment rate rose from 6.9% to 9.4%, which is the expected behaviour during economic contraction. However, since the end of 2009 the job vacancy rate and the unemployment rate in the EU-28 have both risen together - to 1.5% and 10.9% respectively. An increase in the job vacancy rate at a time of high unemployment suggests that employers are finding it harder to fill posts despite a high supply of labour. This implies a decline in matching efficiency in the labour market, though it should be noted that such developments do not hold across all Member States.

Improving transparency and matching

The European network of the Heads of Public Employment Services (HoPES) has recognised that improving transparency in the market – making good quality information on both the current vacancies and the available candidates as widely available as possible - is a key element in improving market efficiency. To this end, PES are working on developing their vacancy and jobseeker databases (e.g. by implementing quality standards to improve the description of the skills required by vacancies and held by jobseekers, developing automated matching tools, improving IT systems, etc.) and entering into new, or extended, information exchange agreements with private agencies. The section includes two case studies looking at the development of the Universal Jobmatch system in the UK and an agreement between public and private employment agencies in France.

PES role in placement

The final element in the process of coordinating information about jobseekers and vacancies is to match the two together and help both employers and jobseekers fulfil their needs and aspirations. It is interesting, therefore, to look at the extent to which PES are involved in actual job placements.

The LFS data provide information on whether or not recent recruits (those in their current job for less than a year) used the PES in any way to find or secure their position. The question is asked, however, only of employees so does not cover people who have become self-employed with assistance from the PES.

In 2012, 11.8% of people in employment (aged 15 to 64) in the EU had been in their current job as an employee for less than a year. Not surprisingly the proportion of recent recruits is much higher among young people (40.2%) than those aged 25-49 or 50-64 (10.9% and 4.8% respectively). The PES made some contribution to the placement of 9.4% of these recent recruits. The level of PES involvement in job placement was slightly lower than average (8.5%) compared to the older age-groups (9.3% for 25-49 and 12.1% for 50-64).

7 See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Occupied_post

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Occupied_post


November 2012 15

Section I: The labour market context for mobility

The Mobility in Europe report aims to present an analysis of the current situation and trends around mobility related issues in the European Union in a way that will feed and stimulate debate amongst labour market policy makers and actors. Each year the first section of the report is a general analytical section giving an overview of some key issues and trends in the labour market which set the context for mobility. This year the focus is on the impact of the recession on the structure of labour markets around Europe and to see if there are any signs of recovery. The analysis investigates where jobs have been lost or gained, the types of jobs affected, and the impact on different groups of workers.


November 2012 16

European labour markets fail to recover: continued decline in employment

Economic context The ten years from mid-2003 to mid-2013 have seen three distinct phases of economic activity across Europe: a period of sustained economic growth from mid-2003 to mid-2008, followed by a severe recession from mid-2008 to mid-2009 and a subsequent period of faltering recovery from mid-2009 to mid-2013 (Figure 1). Each had a distinct impact on the European labour market.

During the five year growth period there was a there was substantial net job creation across the EU with the number of people aged 15-64 in work increasing by an average of over 3 million a year and total employment rising from 204 million in mid-2003 to 219 million by mid-2008. The buoyant labour market saw the employment rate of those aged 20-64 exceed the 70% threshold for the first time in the EU as a whole, reaching 70.5% in the second quarter of 2008 and peaking at 70.7% in the following quarter (Figure 1). At the same time the number of unemployed in the EU fell by over a fifth and the unemployment rate was reduced from 9.2% to 6.9%.

Employment growth in the EU came to an abrupt halt in the second half of 2008 as the global recession, initiated by the financial crisis, resulted in a rapid deterioration in output between mid-2008 and mid-2009 such that real GDP fell by 5.9%. This economic contraction had severe consequences for the labour market as the number employed fell by 1.7%, representing a net loss of some 3.6 million jobs in the EU as a whole. The employment rate of those aged 20-64 fell back to 69.1% and, at the same time, the number of unemployed rose by 4.8 million - more than cancelling out the decline between mid-2003 and mid-2008 and raising the unemployment rate from 6.9% to 8.9%.

In the first 24 months after mid-2009 there was some significant economic growth. However, this was not sustained as the European economy faltered and real GDP fell 0.7% between mid-2011 and mid-2012, likely a result of the Eurozone crisis. During this three year period employment fell by 2 million, the employment rate of those aged 20-64 dropped to 68.6% and the unemployment rate reached 10.4% despite a short-lived reprieve in the contraction of employment and expansion of unemployment between mid-2010 and mid-2011.

The latest data show that the situation at EU level has not improved in the 12 months to mid-2013. The economy continued to decline, albeit by a small amount (0.2% in real terms), employment fell by a further 900 thousand to 212.5 million, the number of unemployed rose by 1.3 million to reach just over 26 million and the unemployment rate continued to rise, reaching 10.9% - the highest level over the last decade.

By mid-2013 the employment rate of those aged 20-64 had declined to 68.4%. In order to achieve the Europe 2020 target of getting 75% of that age group in employment by 2020 would – assuming no change in the size of the population over the period - require the creation of 20.1 million jobs over the next six and a half years. In the current circumstances this represents a considerable challenge.

On a more positive note, the proportion of the population that is active in the labour market (i.e. is in work or is actively seeking work) has continued to rise. Over the ten year period from mid-2003 to mid-2013 the activity rate has risen steadily from 68.9% to 71.9% (Figure 2). It would seem that the difficult economic situation and spiralling levels of unemployment have not unduly discouraged people from seeking employment. Indeed, it might be argued that the financial pressure on households caused by the crisis (e.g. through redundancy, wage freezes, benefit cuts, etc.) has been one of the drivers for increased activity since 2008. Overall, the number of persons considered as inactive in the EU fell by 8% between mid-2008 and mid-2013.


November 2012 17

Figure 1 - Change in real GDP, employment rate and unemployment rate, EU-28, 2003Q2-2013Q2

Change in real GDP compared to the same period in the previous year (%)

Employment rate (%)

Unemployment rate (%)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (online data code: lfsq_ergan) and National accounts (namq_gdp_k) Note: Data on change in real GDP is not seasonally adjusted.

Figure 2 - Population by status and activity rate (%), 15-64, EU-28, 2003Q2-2012Q2

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (online data codes: lfsq_argan, lfsq_egan, lfsq_ugan, lfsq_igan)

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

60

65

70

7515-6420-64

EU 2020 Target

6789

101112

15-64

4550556065707580

050

100150200250300350400

Unemployed Employed Inactive Activity rate

Activity rate (%) Millions

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_ergan

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=namq_gdp_k

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_argan

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_egan

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_ugan

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_igan


November 2012 18

The situation at EU level hides disparate situations in the Member States. Using data on the annual changes in employment from 2008Q2 to 2013Q2, Member States can be grouped into five different categories as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1 - Change in employment compared to the same period in the previous year (%), 15-64, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2

2008Q2 2009Q2 2010Q2 2011Q2 2012Q2 2013Q2

EU-28 1.2 -1.6 -0.9 0.3 -0.4 -0.4 Group 1 - No return to employment growth

Countries which have experienced a continuous decline in employment since mid-2008. EL 1.5 -1.2 -2.2 -6.1 -8.5 -4.1 ES 0.2 -7.3 -2.5 -0.9 -4.9 -3.6 HR 1.8 -1.7 -4.8 -3.8 -1.0 -3.8 PT 1.7 -2.9 -1.9 -1.5 -4.4 -3.7 SI 0.6 -1.6 -1.0 -3.0 -1.5 -1.7

Group 2 - Employment growth unaffected Countries which have experienced continuous growth in employment since mid-2008. DE 0.7 0.4 0.8 2.5 0.7 1.1 LU 3.9 4.3 0.3 1.1 5.8 1.4 MT 1.5 0.0 1.7 2.3 1.8 3.1

Group 3 - Faltering growth in employment Countries which have experienced a mix of growth and decline in employment from mid-2008 to mid-2012 and a decline in the year to mid-2013. FR 1.5 -0.7 0.0 0.3 -0.2 -0.2 IT 1.1 -1.5 -0.9 0.4 -0.4 -2.7 CY 1.1 -0.2 2.8 2.3 -2.7 -4.0 NL 1.4 -0.1 -2.7 -0.1 0.4 -0.7 AT 1.7 -0.7 -0.1 1.7 1.1 -0.3 PL 3.6 1.0 -2.4 0.6 0.2 -0.6 SK 2.7 -1.1 -2.8 0.2 0.6 -0.2 FI 1.9 -3.1 -0.5 0.8 0.0 -0.6

Group 4 - Potential return to employment growth Countries which for the most part (BE is a slight exception) saw employment decline until mid-2012 but recover somewhat in the year to mid-2013. BE 1.6 -0.2 0.7 2.4 -0.7 0.6 BG 3.2 -2.0 -6.7 -4.0 -1.2 0.8 DK 1.6 -2.8 -2.7 -0.4 -0.8 0.3 IE 0.2 -6.4 -4.2 -1.8 -1.5 1.7

Group 5 - Sustained return to employment growth Countries which have experienced employment decline over the early part of the crisis period but have since enjoyed at least two years of employment growth. CZ 1.8 -1.5 -1.1 -0.1 0.2 1.0 EE 0.1 -8.8 -7.0 8.1 3.5 3.0 LV 2.3 -12.1 -4.6 -8.5 0.8 2.5 LT -1.4 -6.8 -13.5 1.9 1.6 1.5 HU -1.9 -1.9 -0.5 0.8 1.7 1.5 RO 0.3 -0.9 1.3 -2.4 1.7 0.1 SE 1.4 -2.2 -0.1 2.4 0.3 0.7 UK 1.2 -2.2 -0.2 0.6 0.7 0.9

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (online data codes: lfsq_ergan)

Overall employment remains lower than in mid-2008 in two thirds of Member States. The only exceptions include those countries where employment continued to grow (Germany, Luxembourg and Malta), Belgium, where the latest figures indicate a potential return to employment growth, Austria, where employment growth is currently faltering and Hungary and Sweden where there appears to have been a more sustained return to employment growth.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_ergan


November 2012 19

It is important to be aware that even in countries which are now seeing some recovery in employment this may not translate into increased employment rates if the population is expanding at a faster rate. In fact, among the countries that are in a better position now than in mid-2008 in terms of absolute numbers in employment, the employment rate is unchanged in Belgium and slightly lower in Sweden (by 0.2 percentage points). Meanwhile, in the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania, although the numbers in work have fallen over the past five years the employment rates have risen because the underlying population has declined more rapidly.

Employment trends since the start of the crisis There have been two major trends in the structure of employment in Europe since the start of the crisis: a shift from full-time employment to part-time employment and a redistribution of employment between different sectors of the economy.

Continued decline in full-time employment and growth in part-time employment

Since mid-2008 an important characteristic of developments in European labour markets has been the large-scale decline in full-time employment. The severity of this decline is hidden somewhat in the overall employment figures because it has been partly offset by a steady rise in part-time employment.

Between mid-2008 and mid-2009, as the impact of the crisis on European labour markets became all too evident, full-time employment in the EU declined by some 4.1 million (Figure 3) whilst part-time employment increased by half a million such that total employment fell by 3.6 million. In the following 12 months (to mid-2010) there was a smaller decline in full-time employment (2.8 million) but a larger increase in the numbers of people working part-time (0.8 million) resulting in an overall decline in employment of 2 million.

The year from mid-2010 to mid-2011 saw some reprieve with the numbers of persons in both full- and part-time employment increasing, though the latter contributed two thirds of the overall rise (just over 500 thousand compared to just over 250 thousand).

However, the recovery was short-lived and in the year to mid-2012 the number of full-time jobs fell by a further 1.6 million, though this was offset by an increase of 0.7 million in the number of people working part-time. The latest data show that this trend persisted in the 12 months to mid-2013 with a continued decline in the numbers of people working full-time (1.7 million) while the number working part-time rose (0.5 million).

Figure 3 - Change in employment, 15-64, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (online data code: lfsq_epgaed)

-6-5-4-3-2-101234

2008Q2 -2009Q2

2009Q2 -2010Q2

2010Q2 -2011Q2

2011Q2 -2012Q2

2012Q2 -2013Q2

Total

Part-time

Full-time

Change in millions

707580859095

100105110115120

2008Q2 2009Q2 2010Q2 2011Q2 2012Q2 2013Q2

Total

Part-time

Full-time

Index 2008Q2 = 100

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_epgaed


November 2012 20

Whilst the number of people in work overall is 3% down on the level in mid-2008, there are now 7.8% more people working part-time and 5.5% fewer working full-time. This has meant that in the EU-28 the proportion of people in employment working part-time has risen from 17.6% to a new high of 19.6%. This change reflects perhaps an unwillingness of employers to take on workers on a full-time basis when the recession and the subsequent sovereign debt crisis has raised uncertainty about the future prospects for European economies, as well as their search for more flexibility in the organisation of their work force, so possibly converting full-time jobs into part-time ones, with the acceptance on the part of employees given the alternative of losing their jobs completely. The changing balance between part-time and full-time work may also reflect the kind of work that is being created or destroyed, with jobs being lost in sectors that tend to rely on full-time employees and jobs being created in those where part-time employment is much more common.

Growth in part-time employment has been widespread and not noticeably concentrated among countries where such working practices are already relatively common. In fact, between mid-2008 and mid-2013 part-time employment grew in all Member States except Croatia, Poland and Sweden (Figure 4). This growth exceeded 25% in seven countries. Two of these – Luxembourg and Malta – already had part-time employment rates in excess of 10% at the start of the period whilst the remaining five – Hungary, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia and Slovakia – had part-time employment rates of no more than 6.6%. The highest growth occurred in Slovakia where part-time employment more than doubled, bringing the proportion in part-time employment up to 4.8% from 2.1% five years earlier.

Breaking down the changes in employment by working time across Member States highlights further how the economic crisis has impacted the number of full-time jobs available. Since mid-2008, seven countries8 have seen an overall rise in employment and, in all but one of these, part-time employment grew at much faster rate than full-time employment. In fact, in Hungary and Austria the growth in overall employment can be fully attributed to increased part-time working as the number working full-time declined during the period. Sweden is the only case where the overall increase in employment is attributable solely to a rise in full-time employment (2.9%) as part-time employment fell over the period (-4.5 %). In most of the other twenty one Member States in which employment declined between mid-2008 and mid-2013, the decline in full-time employment was offset to some extent by increased part-time employment. The only exceptions were Poland and Croatia where part-time employment also fell.

Figure 4 - Change in employment by working time (%), 15-64, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (online data codes: lfsq_egan)

8 Luxembourg, Malta, Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Austria, Sweden

-25

0

25

50

75

-25

0

25

50

75

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Full-time Part-time Total

120.5

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_egan


November 2012 21

Changes in employment by sector

This section considers how the crisis has impacted differentially on different sectors of activity. Box 1 and Box 2 provide important information about how sectors have been aggregated into groups to simplify the analysis and on the distribution of non-responses to avoid distortion.

Box 1 – Aggregation of sectors

Data on sectoral changes are based on the NACE rev.2 classification system. To simplify the analysis some 1-digit sectors were aggregated into groups as follows:

Aggregates NACE rev.2 1-digit sectors Agriculture A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing Industry (except construction)

B - Mining and quarrying C - Manufacturing D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities

Construction F – construction Basic services G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles

H - Transportation and storage I - Accommodation and food service activities R - Arts, entertainment and recreation S - Other service activities T - Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods- and services-producing activities of households for own use U - Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies

Advanced services

J - Information and communication K - Financial and insurance activities L - Real estate activities

Communal services

M - Professional, scientific and technical activities N - Administrative and support service activities O - Public administration and defence; compulsory social security P - Education Q - Human health and social work activities

Box 2 - Important notes about the data by sector

All labour market data used in this chapter derive from the European Labour Force Survey, which is a quarterly household survey undertaken in 33 countries9. The data on the sector in which people are employed includes some non-responses. Normally these represent a very small proportion of responses and can largely be ignored. However, in the data for the 2nd quarter of 2013, the number of non-responses is nearly 0.8 million higher than the number in the 2nd quarter of 2008, which is the basis for comparison. This difference derives almost entirely from increased non-responses in three countries: France, the Netherlands and the UK.

For these countries, and at EU level, the increased non-response rate means that a direct comparison (between the two periods) of employment by sector would tend to overstate job losses and understate gains and result (at EU level) in the sum of changes by sector giving an overall decline in employment of -7.4 million compared to the correct figure of -6.6 million. To avoid this distortion, all non-responses for all countries in both periods have been allocated to sectors in proportion to the relative weight of the sector in total employment for the country.

The economic downturn originated from a crisis in international financial markets, in particular those associated with the housing market in the US. As a result its initial impact was concentrated mainly on the construction sector which had overheated in a 9 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/introduction

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/introduction


November 2012 22

number of the Member States. Subsequently the recession spread to other sectors with manufacturing being one of the hardest hit, particularly among the investment and production goods industries as expenditure on capital equipment and durable goods, which can most easily be postponed, was cut back.

Indeed, from mid-2008 to mid-2010, the 5.6 million decline in EU employment derived principally from industry (-3.9 million) and construction (-2.0 million) although a significant number of jobs were also lost from the basic services sector (-1.5 million). There were also minor losses in the advanced services sector (-0.2 million). However, these job losses were partially offset by a significant rise in employment in the communal services sector (2.1 million), which includes health, education and public administration (Box 1).

From mid-2010 to mid-2011, during the short-lived and small-scale recovery in employment at EU level, the 0.7 million rise in the number of persons in employment derived mainly from services, in particular communal services (0.7 million) and to a lesser extent basic services (0.4 million) and advanced services (0.3 million). Employment in industry also recovered slightly (0.3 million). These gains were however offset by continued job losses in construction (-0.4 million) and similar losses in agriculture (-0.4 million), which had been largely unaffected at EU level until this point.

In the following two years (mid-2011 to mid-2013) a further fall of 1.8 million in the number of employed persons derived mainly from industry (-1 million) and construction (-1.1 million) although there were also much smaller losses in basic services and agriculture (-0.1 and -0.2 million). The communal services sector again contributed to offset these declines but the gain of 0.6 million was less than in previous years.

Construction is therefore the only sector to have experienced a continuous and significant decline throughout the five year period. By mid-2013 there were 19.4% fewer people employed in the sector than in mid-2008 (Figure 5). Industry experienced a similar decline up until mid-2010, with a temporary one year reprieve followed by a renewed decline thereafter, such that by mid-2013 numbers employed in the sector were down 11.1%.

Figure 5 - Change in employment by sector, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (online data code: lfsq_epgn62)

Employment in agriculture and basic services initially declined up until mid-2009 or even mid-2010 and then fluctuated thereafter such that numbers were down by between 2 and 6% by the second quarter of 2013. Meanwhile, employment in advanced services also initially declined up to mid-2010, rose until mid-2012 and dropped again thereafter

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_epgn62


November 2012 23

such that employment in this sector in mid-2013 was slightly above the level in mid-2008 (0.8% higher).

Communal services is the only sector to have experienced a continuous employment growth over the period, with the numbers employed 4.8% higher in mid-2013 than five years earlier. Indeed the numbers employed rose in all sub-sectors (see Box 1) except that related to public administration where there was a decline of 4.3%, a result of the public sector cutbacks applied in various Member States. In the communal services sector as a whole the rate of job growth has slowed over time. This slowdown seems to derive mainly from employment in human health and social work activities, which was the main driver of growth in this sector between mid-2008 and mid-2011 as well as the job losses noted in public administration, defence and compulsory social security. These trends raise some concern as to prospects for future growth in the sector as a whole. However, whilst the situation in most sub-sectors is looking less optimistic, employment in professional, scientific and technical activities expanded more between mid-2012 and mid-2013 than during any period between mid-2008 and mid-2012.

Whilst the EU trends are not driven solely by one or two large countries, some countries contribute significantly to the changes observed in different sectors over the past five years (Table 2). Industry and construction were the hardest hit sectors with job losses affecting all countries except Austria (both industry and construction), Germany, Belgium and Sweden (all construction only). The job losses were concentrated in Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom, which together accounted for just over 40% of jobs lost in industry and 60% of those lost in construction. On the other hand, the number of jobs in the communal services sector increased in 21 of the 28 Member States but the majority of the gains were concentrated in just three countries - Germany, the United Kingdom and Poland, which together accounted for just over 70% of the jobs created – and there were still significant losses in countries such as Italy, Greece and Spain.

Table 2 - Change in employment by sector and by country (1000s), 2008Q2-2013Q2

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (online data code: lfsq_epgn62)

Uneven effect on different age groups: Negative impact on youth persists whilst employment of 50+ continues to expand

The fall-out of the economic and financial crisis has resulted in the number of persons in work across the EU falling by more than 6.6 million in the five years since mid-2008. However, this decline has not been distributed equally amongst workers of different ages. Indeed, the number of people aged 50-64 in work actually rose consistently every year during this time (Figure 6), such that there were 6.3 million or 12% more in employment by the second quarter of 2013. This pattern applied in over four-fifths of EU

Ctry / No.

ctries

Change (1000s)

Ctry / No.

ctries

Change (1000s)

Ctry / No.

ctries

Change (1000s)

Ctry / No.

ctries

Change (1000s)

Ctry / No.

ctries

Change (1000s)

Ctry / No.

ctries

Change (1000s)

1 FR 112.1 AT 13.8 DE 228.6 DE 581.8 FR 116.0 DE 1476.12 RO 103.3 BE 4.0 RO 95.7 PL 91.4 UK 1066.33 HU 32.6 SE 3.9 BE 79.3 CZ 57.7 PL 310.6

3 4.2 1 2.8 8 152.8 15 241.9 18 1131.4

6 252.2 1 13.8 4 239.3 11 909.6 18 507.0 21 3984.41 PL -339.5 ES -940.0 ES -1523.7 ES -787.1 ES -194.6 IT -229.72 DE -105.2 IT -600.7 UK -438.0 EL -322.0 NL -67.5 EL -134.83 NL -61.9 UK -429.7 IT -397.1 FR -197.6 UK -52.1 ES -134.6

19 -381.5 24 -2716.1 21 -1495.2 14 -818.2 5 -60.1 4 -51.8

22 -888.1 27 -4686.5 24 -3854.0 17 -2124.9 8 -374.3 7 -550.9

28 -635.9 28 -4672.7 28 -3614.7 28 -1215.2 26 132.7 28 3433.5

A - Agriculture B-E - Industry (except

construction)

F - Construction

G-I + R-U - Basic services

J-L - Advanced services

M-Q - Communal services

Total change

Top 3 increases

Other increases

Total increases

Top 3 decreases

Other decreases

Total decreases

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_epgn62


November 2012 24

Member States, with employment in this age-group falling in just five countries (CZ, EL, LV, PT and SE).

Job losses were instead focused among those under the age of 50 to such an extent that, between 2008 and 2013, as many as 8.5 million fewer jobs were held by prime-age workers (aged 25 to 49) and 4.4 million fewer by the youth age-group (aged 15 to 24). However, since the contribution of youth to overall employment is much smaller the relative impact was much more severe with a 19.3% decline in the number in work compared to 5.9% for the prime-age group. The EU-level picture was repeated in almost all Member States with youth age-group relatively worse affected than the prime-age group in all countries except the Netherlands and Austria where those aged 25-49 were worse affected.

Figure 6 - Change in employment by age group, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2


Some of this change is likely to derive from changes in the sizes of the underlying population of each age-group. Nevertheless, when employment rates of different groups are considered significant differences between age groups remain. Between mid-2008 and mid-2013, the employment rate of older workers (50+) rose 2.8 percentage points from 56.5% to 59.3% as growth in employment of this group outstripped the growth in the underlying population. Meanwhile, the employment rate of prime-age workers fell 3.3 percentage points from 80.4% to 77.1% and that of youth (<25) fell 5.1 percentage points from 37.2% to 32.1% as the decline in employment in these groups was much greater than the decline in the size of underlying populations.

Only older workers benefited from expanding sectors

Decomposing the changes in employment for each age group by sector reveals that the losses and gains in employment in different sectors between mid-2008 and mid-2013 were unevenly spread across different age groups (Figure 7).

Employment of young people declined each year in almost all sectors. The biggest overall losses were in the basic services sector (-1.5 million) followed by industry (-1.1 million) and construction (-0.9 million). There was even sizable decline in youth employment in communal services (-0.5 million) despite the growth in this sector overall. Employment in advanced services and agriculture also fell.

Similarly, employment of prime aged workers declined each year in almost all sectors. However, the distribution of the losses was different than for young people with the biggest losses occurring in industry (-4.0 million), followed by construction (-2.6 million),

-6-5-4-3-2-101234

2008Q2-2009Q2

2009Q2-2010Q2

2010Q2-2011Q2

2011Q2-2012Q2

2012Q2-2013Q2

15-24

25-49

50-54

Change in millions

707580859095

100105110115120

2008Q2 2009Q2 2010Q2 2011Q2 2012Q2 2013Q2

15-24

25-49

50-54

Index 2008Q2 = 100



November 2012 25

and then basic services (-1.4 million). Prime-age workers also failed to benefit from the overall gains in the communal services sector as the numbers employed in this sector remained more or less unchanged over the period. Employment in advanced services and agriculture also fell.

Figure 7 - Change in employment by age group and sector (Index 2008Q2=100), 15-64, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2

15-24

25-49

50-64




November 2012 26

Whilst the two younger age groups experienced negative or no growth in employment in all sectors this was not the case for older workers. In fact, construction was the only sector in which employment of senior workers declined and even this was only small in comparison with declines experienced by other age-groups (-0.1 million). Employment grew in industry (0.5 million), advanced services (0.5 million) and basic services (1.7 million) but the largest gains were in the communal services sector (3.8 million).

In effect, any employment growth in any sector was focused among senior workers. There could be several reasons for this. First, employers may be relatively more reluctant to dismiss older workers either because they possess more skills and experience that may be more difficult to recoup later on or they tend to be more difficult and costly to dismiss either due to longer job tenure or due to holding relatively less-flexible contracts. Secondly, older workers may be choosing to stay in work longer than in the past, which may be linked to policies to promote longer working lives, including the raising of pension ages, but could also linked directly to the crisis in terms of financial pressures on households, cuts in the value of pensions, etc.

Increased part-time employment has offset some of the full-time job-losses, but not for young people

The continuous rise in part-time employment over the period mid-2008 to mid-2013 (see Figure 4 above) has offset to some extent the decline in full-time employment but this has not applied evenly across age groups or sectors (Table 3).

Table 3 - Change in employment by working-time, age and sector, EU-28, 2008Q2-2013Q2 (%)

Total Part-time Full-time All 15-24 25-49 50-64 All 15-24 25-49 50-64 All 15-24 25-49 50-64 Total -3.0 -19.3 -5.9 12.0 7.8 -2.1 5.5 18.7 -5.5 -26.5 -8.2 10.2 A – Agriculture -5.9 -6.4 -8.9 -0.9 -6.6 -3.5 -10.2 -3.4 -6.0 -8.8 -8.9 -0.3 B-E - Industry (except construction) -11.1 -28.6 -14.1 4.9 -2.7 -18.6 -3.7 5.5 -11.8 -30.4 -14.9 4.8 F – Construction -19.4 -39.1 -21.0 -3.5 4.2 -30.7 7.9 10.8 -21.1 -40.3 -22.7 -4.9 G-I + R-U - Basic services -1.9 -16.2 -3.5 12.7 7.7 -1.1 8.2 17.1 -5.0 -26.6 -6.4 11.1 J-L - Advanced services 0.8 -23.9 -0.9 17.8 3.2 -23.3 1.1 24.6 0.2 -25.2 -1.3 16.3 M-Q - Communal services 4.8 -10.0 0.2 19.9 12.2 6.4 6.7 25.8 2.4 -17.5 -1.8 17.9 Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (online data code: lfsq_epgaed)

Full-time employment declined across all sectors for youth and prime-age workers with the former experiencing the largest relative declines in employment in almost all cases. In construction and industry, where the largest falls in employment were registered, the numbers of full-time jobs held by young people fell by 40.3% and 30.4% respectively whilst the numbers held by prime-age workers fell by 22.7% and 14.9%. In basic services, advanced services and communal services, full-time employment of youth declined by 26.6%, 25.2% and 17.5% respectively whilst employment of prime-working age individuals also fell but by no more than 6.5% in any of these sectors.

Meanwhile, full-time employment of older workers rose in all sectors except construction (-4.9%) and agriculture, where there was a marginal decline (-0.3%). In basic services, advanced services and communal services the number of jobs held by senior workers rose by 11.1%, 16.3% and 17.9% respectively whilst the numbers of both young and prime-age workers fell.

Part-time employment increased overall in all sectors except agriculture (-6.6%) and industry (-2.7%). Gains were most notable for older workers, with the numbers employed rising in all sectors except agriculture (-3.4%) and increases as high as 24.6% and 25.8% respectively in advanced services and communal services. The number of prime-age workers working part-time rose in all sectors except agriculture (-10.2%) and



November 2012 27

industry (-3.7%) but in practice the increases observed in other sectors only offset a relatively small amount of the decline in full-time employment because part-time employment has a relatively low weight in overall employment.

Strikingly, however, the number of young people working part-time declined in all sectors except communal services, where a small increase was registered (6.4%). The largest declines occurred in industry (-18.6%), construction (-30.7%) and advanced services (-23.3%). For young people, part-time employment therefore provided little or no respite and simply compounded the declines in full-time work.

Total employment grew over the period only in communal services (+4.8%) and very slightly in advanced services (+0.8%). However, in both cases the additional jobs created went only to older workers. There were some gains in part-time employment in these sectors for workers aged below 50 but these were not enough to offset declines in full-time employment, particularly for those aged under 25.


November 2012 28

Section II: Recent trends in labour mobility

The Mobility in Europe report includes each year an analysis of recent trends in labour mobility. This year, the chapter includes a brief update of the analysis contained in the three previous Mobility in Europe reports on return or circular labour movements between the EU12 countries – those that have entered the EU since 2004 – and EU15 Member States. It then looks in more detail at how migrants - both those moving within the EU and those coming from outside the EU - have integrated into the workforce of the countries that they move into. This latter section considers the employment status of migrants compared to nationals, the type of jobs that they do and whether or not they tend to be over-qualified for these. Then, in case of unemployment, it looks at whether migrants are more likely to be made redundant than their native-born colleagues, how long it takes them to find another job, and the extent to which they turn to the public employment services for support.


November 2012 29

Labour movements between EU Member States – recent developments The 2010 Mobility in Europe report contained an analysis of return or circular migration, with a focus on movements between the 10 countries which entered the EU in 2004 (the ‘EU10’ countries) and the two which entered in 2007 (the ‘EU2’), on the one hand, and the 15 countries (the ‘EU15’) which were members before 2004. A particular aspect examined was the way that the net flows were affected by the economic recession which hit the EU in 2008 and the subsequent period of crisis in which economic growth across most of the EU has been at best sluggish. The last two reports, for 2011 and 2012, included an update of the analysis, examining subsequent developments. The concern here is to extend the analysis further by examining developments in 2012 when many of the EU15 countries, and some of the EU12 ones, experienced renewed recession and in a number of cases a renewed reduction in employment.

Labour flows between the EU12 and EU15 during the crisis Before the onset of the crisis, there were large-scale movements from the EU12 countries in Central and Eastern Europe into the EU15 which intensified following the entry of 10 of these countries into the Union in May 2004. Movements were particularly large into the UK and Ireland, which removed restrictions on entry to the labour market for people from these 10 countries as soon as they joined the Union. (They were much smaller, though still significant, into Sweden, which also removed restrictions immediately.) At the same time, there were large-scale movements into Spain, Italy and Greece, as well as Cyprus, of men and, more especially women, from Romania and Bulgaria even though these two countries did not enter the EU until the beginning of 2007.

2008-2010

Between 2008 and 2010, in the initial years of the crisis when GDP and employment fell in most countries, the number of young people aged 15-24 from the EU10 countries fell in the EU15 Member States in which they were most important, namely Ireland and the UK (Table 410). This could reflect a return movement back to the EU10, which there is evidence of, as well as a movement to other countries, in both cases perhaps because of a deterioration in labour market conditions and, in the case of those from Poland, continued economic growth at home (Poland was one of the very few countries in which GDP did not decline in 2009). In Ireland, the decline in numbers from the EU10 was particularly large, amounting to over 1 percentage point.

There is less evidence of a decline in net migration of young people from Bulgaria and Romania. In the countries in which they were most numerous relative to the domestic population, Spain, Italy and Cyprus, their numbers increased significantly, especially in the last two countries, their numbers more than doubling in Italy and increasing by more than three times in Cyprus.

There was also an increase in these three countries in the relative number of young people from outside the EU, pushing their number of to 13% of the 15-24 age-group in Spain. In Greece too, their numbers rose markedly over these two years, while in Ireland, there was an increase too if on a smaller scale. In Austria, Sweden and the UK, however, there is evidence a reduction in net inward migration of young people from third countries.

10 It should be noted that because of a revision of the LFS data, the figures differ in some cases from those

included in the 2012 Mobility Report.


November 2012 30

Table 4 - People aged 15-24 and 25-49 born outside the EU15 living in EU15 Member States as % total population in these age groups, 2008-2012

From EU10 From Bulgaria+Romania From outside EU 2008 2010 2011 2012 2008 2010 2011 2012 2008 2010 2011 2012 15-24

Ireland 6.6 5.3 4.6 4.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 3.5 4.7 4.9 5.7 Greece 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 6.9 9.1 7.4 6.8 Spain 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.6 11.9 13.2 13.2 12.9 Italy 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 2.1 2.3 2.2 5.5 6.9 7.6 8.0 Cyprus 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 1.8 5.7 6.5 7.1 9.5 11.0 10.9 9.0 Austria 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 10.2 9.3 8.5 7.8 Sweden 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 10.1 9.6 9.6 10.2 UK 2.3 1.9 2.1 1.9 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 6.5 6.2 7.6 7.0 25-49

Ireland 7.1 8.0 8.1 8.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 6.4 7.0 7.2 7.8 Greece 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.2 7.9 10.5 9.7 9.4 Spain 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.0 13.7 15.0 14.9 14.8 Italy 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.9 3.3 3.5 7.7 9.4 10.0 10.6 Cyprus 0.5 1.2 1.4 1.1 2.3 6.9 7.4 7.9 14.6 17.6 17.7 17.4 Austria 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.8 0.9 1.4 1.7 1.5 13.0 13.5 13.6 13.5 Sweden 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 12.8 15.1 15.9 16.2 UK 1.9 2.8 3.1 3.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.5 11.2 12.3 12.9 13.4

Note: EU10 refers to the Central and Eastern European countries which entered the EU in 2004 Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey

For those aged 25-49, there was a continued increase in the relative number of people from the EU10 between 2008 and 2010 in Ireland and the UK as well as in Sweden, signalling continued net inward migration despite the recession, though a slight decline in Austria. There was also an increase of those in this age group from Bulgaria and Romania in Spain, Italy and Cyprus over these two years which was on a similar scale to that of young people in Spain and even larger in Italy and Cyprus. At the same time, net inward migration from outside the EU continued on a significant scale in all the countries.

2011

In 2011, there was continued outward net migration of young people aged 15-24 from the EU10 from Ireland, though a resumption of net inward migration in the UK as well as Austria. In Spain too, there is evidence of net outward migration of young people from Bulgaria and Romania. In Italy and Cyprus, however, net inward migration seems to have continued, though at a much slower rate. In Italy, there was also net inward migration of young people from outside the EU, though again at a slower rate, as there was in the UK after net outward migration over the previous two years. In the other countries, apart from Ireland where there was some net inward migration if on a small scale, the relative number of young people from outside the EU either declined or remained much the same.

For those aged 25-49, there are sign of a slowdown in net inward movement from the EU10 in Ireland and the UK, especially in the former, and in Austria, perhaps a resumption of net inward migration from these countries (though the change in the relative number of this age group resident in the country is too small to be sure). In Spain, Italy and Cyprus, there is also evidence of a slowdown in net inflows of this age group from Bulgaria and Romania, especially in the first. This was accompanied by a slowdown as well in net inward migration into Italy, while in Spain and Cyprus, inward migration from outside seems to have been matched by outward migration leaving the


November 2012 31

relative numbers resident in the countries broadly unchanged. In the UK and Ireland, net inward migration from outside the EU continued but at a slower pace, while in Greece, there seems to have significant net outward migration.

2012

In 2012, the relative number of young people aged 15-24 from the EU10 declined in both Ireland and the UK, suggesting an increase in return migration and/or fewer people moving to these two countries, perhaps as a consequence of renewed recession in the UK and a continued decline in employment in Ireland. In Spain and Italy, the relative number of those in this age group from Bulgaria and Romania was much the same in 2012 as in 2011, implying that there was no net inward migration, unlike in Cyprus, where the relative number increased. This was accompanied in the latter by net outward migration of young people from outside the EU, which also seems to have occurred in the UK and Spain as well as in Greece and Austria, while there is evidence of net inward migration into Ireland, Italy and Sweden.

In the case of those aged 25-49, there was little change in the relative numbers from the EU10 in Ireland or in the UK in 2012, suggesting that inward movements of the people concerned were matched by outward movements. In Austria, on the other hand, there seems to have a net inward movement from these countries. There also seems to have been continuing inward net movement of Bulgarians and Romanians into Italy, though on a smaller scale than before, as well as into Cyprus. On the other hand, the relative number of Bulgarian and Romanians of this age group in Spain declined in 2012, implying that more of them left the country than entered it for the first time for some years.

This was also the case in Spain in respect of people in this age group from outside the EU, though the decline in population was marginal. There was a larger decline in both Greece and Cyprus, while in Italy, net inward migration from outside the EU seems to have continued to increase in 2012. This also seems to have been the case in both Ireland and the UK. While, therefore, the recession in the UK and near stagnation in Ireland may have limited inward movement from the EU10 countries and encouraged some people from these countries to return, it appears not to have had the same effect on people coming from outside the EU. The difference might lie in the more favourable economic conditions in the EU10 countries than in the third countries from which migrants from outside the EU originate.

Employment rates over the crisis period The fact that people moving from the EU12 countries into EU15 Member States largely do so to find a job tends to mean that in many of the Member States concerned, they are more likely to be employed than the domestic population. In some cases, however, the situation has been changed by the crisis and by the job shortages that this has created, which seem to have affected both men and women from the EU12, and from Bulgaria and Romania especially, more than the native part of the population.

In both Ireland and the UK, therefore, particularly the former, the employment rate of those of working age (taken as 15-64) from the EU10 was significantly higher than that of the native-born population before the crisis began (Table 5). In the initial years of the crisis, however, job losses in Ireland were disproportionately concentrated on those from the EU10, whose employment rate fell by over 21 percentage points between 2007 and 2010, well over twice the scale of decline for those born in Ireland. In the UK, on the other hand, the employment rate of those from the EU10 increase over these three years despite the job losses which occurred and which led to the employment rate of those born in the UK to fall by 2 percentage points. In both Sweden and Austria, by contrast,


November 2012 32

the employment rate of those from the EU10 – and indeed of those from outside the EU – changed in much the same way as the rate of those born in the respective countries.

Table 5 - Employment rates by country of birth in selected EU Member States, 2007-2012 % population 15-64 Percentage-point change 2007 2010 2011 2012 2007-10 2010-11 2011-12 2007-12 Same 68.1 59.7 58.8 58.9 -8.3 -0.9 0.0 -9.2 IE EU10 86.4 65.3 66.3 66.9 -21.1 1.1 0.5 -19.5 Non-EU 64.7 53.9 54.3 53.4 -10.8 0.5 -1.0 -11.3

Same 60.9 59.0 55.2 51.4 -1.9 -3.8 -3.8 -9.5 GR EU2 73.9 73.1 69.5 60.1 -0.8 -3.6 -9.4 -13.8 Non-EU 67.5 63.8 57.8 49.0 -3.7 -6.0 -8.8 -18.5

Same 64.4 59.2 58.1 56.2 -5.2 -1.1 -1.9 -8.2 ES EU2 75.0 57.6 50.9 50.3 -17.5 -6.7 -0.6 -24.8 Non-EU 70.4 53.7 55.2 49.9 -16.7 1.6 -5.3 -20.5

Same 58.0 56.3 56.3 56.3 -1.8 0.1 0.0 -1.7 IT EU2 72.8 68.2 66.0 65.4 -4.6 -2.2 -0.6 -7.4 Non-EU 66.2 60.8 60.8 59.2 -5.4 0.0 -1.6 -7.0

Same 70.8 68.0 66.6 63.2 -2.7 -1.4 -3.4 -7.6 CY EU2 76.3 79.7 78.4 73.0 3.4 -1.3 -5.4 -3.2 Non-EU 75.2 70.6 69.7 69.3 -4.5 -0.9 -0.4 -5.9

Same 72.7 72.9 73.3 73.8 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.1 AT EU10 67.4 67.8 70.1 71.2 0.4 2.3 1.1 3.8 Non-EU 63.0 64.0 64.4 63.6 1.0 0.4 -0.8 0.6

Same 76.2 74.4 76.0 76.2 -1.8 1.5 0.2 0.0 SE EU10 69.6 68.0 69.5 71.5 -1.6 1.5 2.0 2.0 Non-EU 58.9 56.7 58.2 58.6 -2.2 1.6 0.4 -0.2

Same 71.9 69.8 69.9 70.7 -2.1 0.1 0.8 -1.2 UK EU10 78.9 81.8 81.3 76.4 3.0 -0.5 -5.0 -2.5 Non-EU 62.7 63.1 62.4 63.1 0.4 -0.7 0.7 0.4 Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

In Spain and Italy, the employment rate of Bulgarians and Romanians was also much higher than the rate of the native population before the onset of the crisis but, as in Ireland, they were hot more by the loss of jobs than the latter. This was especially the case in Spain, where the employment rate of those from Bulgaria and Romania declined by almost 18 percentage points between 2007 and 2010, while the rate of those from outside the EU fell by only slightly less (17 percentage points), in both cases three times the fall for the native population. As In Ireland, this reflects to a large extent the relative concentration of workers from these countries in the construction industry in which many of the job losses occurred. In Cyprus and Greece, on the other hand, the employment of those from Bulgaria and Romania was less affected in the initial years of the crisis than the native population, though this was not the case for those outside the EU, who experienced a bigger fall in their employment rate than those born in the two countries.

Since 2010, employment rates have stabilised in Ireland and those from the EU10 have experienced a slightly increase. Nevertheless, in 2012, the rate for the latter was still almost 20 percentage below what it had been before the crisis began, a reduction of


November 2012 33

twice the size of that for those born in the country. The employment rate of those from outside the EU had also fallen by more than that of the latter.

In the UK, on the other hand, while the employment rate of the domestically-born population of working age rose slightly from 2010 to 2012 and the rate of those from outside the EU remained unchanged, the rate of those from the EU10 fell by almost 6 percentage points. The overall reduction in the rate over the crisis period was, therefore, slightly bigger for the latter group than for those born in the UK.

In Austria and Sweden, by contrast, employment of those from the EU10 has risen since 2010 and in 2012 their employment rate was in both cases a little more above what it had been before the crisis began than was the case for those born in the two countries.

In Spain and Italy, the employment rate of Bulgarians and Romanians fell in the two years 2010-2012, which is also the case for the domestically-born population in Spain, though the fall was less – in Italy, there was little change in the rate for the latter. In 2012, therefore, the employment rate of those from Bulgaria and Romania in Spain was around 25 percentage points lower than it had been 5 years earlier, as compared with a fall of 8 percentage points for those born in Spain. As result, the employment rate for the latter was well above that for those from these two countries, which had fallen to only 50%, whereas the reverse had been the case in the pre-crisis period. The employment rate for those from outside the EU has also fallen markedly over the crisis period and in 2012 was only 50% too.

In Italy, the employment rate of those from Bulgaria and Romania was over 7 percentage points lower in 2012 than it had been before the crisis, which was slightly larger than the fall for those from outside the EU, while the domestically-born population experienced a decline of than 2 percentage points.

Similarly in Greece, where the crisis has escalated since 2010 causing large-scale job losses, the employment rate of both the domestically-born population and those from Bulgaria and Romania fell markedly in the two years up to 2012, though more so for the latter than the former. In 2012, therefore, the employment rate of Bulgarians and Romanians in Greece was 14 percentage points lower than 5 years earlier while that for the domestically born was just under 10 percentage points lower. Both figures, however, are significantly less than the fall experienced by those from third countries which was almost 19 percentage points.

In Cyprus, the employment rate of those from Bulgaria and Romania also declined by more from 2010 to 2012 than that of those born in the country – by almost 7 percentage points as opposed to just under 5 percentage points. Nevertheless, because of its increase in the initial years of the crisis, the overall reduction between 2007 and 2012 was still much smaller than for the domestic-born.


November 2012 34

Integration of migrants from within and outside the EU

Introduction Migration into the EU from neighbouring countries in particular, though also from further afield, has been a significant source of labour over the long-term. Over the past two decades or so, it is the main reason why working-age population in the EU, and with it the labour force, has continued to grow, compensating for a slowdown in the growth of the domestic population as a consequence of falling birth rates. Over this period, and in the last 10 years especially, it has been accompanied by large-scale movements of population within the EU, particularly from east to west and particularly from the countries in Central and Eastern Europe which has joined the European Union since 2004 to EU15 countries (i.e. the countries which were members of the EU before 2004). Both the migration flows into the EU from outside and the movements between Member States have consisted predominantly of young people, those aged 15-29, moving in search of education or employment – of higher quality schooling and training which is more relevant to future employment prospects and better and higher-paid jobs.

The migration flows concerned, however, have been stimulated not only by pull-factors, by the opportunities on offer in generally more developed and more prosperous countries, but also by push factors in the countries of origin, by a lack of jobs and of future prospects, low rates of pay, poor working and living conditions and, in some cases, social unrest and even conflict. From an economic perspective, the flows in question can be seen as both a response to labour market imbalances – of a shortage of jobs in one place coinciding with a shortage of labour in others – and a means of helping to correct those imbalances, accordingly, as a positive force working in favour of a better functioning European economy. This implies, however, that there are job vacancies available for migrants to move into in the places to which they move – or that they have the entrepreneurial talent to create additional jobs – that they possess the skills and attributes to do the jobs concerned and that they do not leave the place they left more impoverished than before.

From a social perspective, there are likely to be gains to the people moving in terms of their income and living conditions as well as perhaps to the people they leave behind if they send remittances back or if their departure makes it easier for other people to find jobs. At the same time, their well-being, and indeed their potential income and job prospects, depends to a large extent on how well they are able to integrate into the society which they moving into and how far they are treated equitably. This depends in turn on the support measures in place to help them make the transition and the prevailing attitudes towards migrants (from both within and outside the EU) among the domestic population, which will tend to be formed to a significant degree by the views and statements of those in government both now and in the past. It also depends on the policies towards migrants and their integration which have been implemented by them over the years and which may differ depending on the origin of the migrants. For people moving within the EU, a particularly important factor is the policies adopted by countries during the 7 year transition period allowed in relation to the free movement of workers from the countries acceding to the EU in 2004 and 2007.

The concern here is not directly with these attitudes or policies but with the extent to which migrants from both inside and outside the EU seem to be integrated into EU societies, and more especially into employment, as reflected in various aspects of their situation in relation to the domestic population – i.e. those born in the country concerned. The aspects covered are:

• their employment status, i.e. the extent to which they are unemployed or economically inactive as opposed to being in paid work;

• the types of job they do and in particular whether they are disproportionately employed in part-time jobs and in temporary jobs;

• how far the jobs that they do are in line with their educational attainment levels;


November 2012 35

• whether they are disproportionately likely to be made redundant when employers are reducing their work force;

• the time it takes them to find a job if they become unemployed and the relative number who long-term unemployed;

• whether they are more of less likely to be registered at employment offices when out of work and more or less likely to find a job with the assistance of the Public Employment Services.

In each case, the focus is on both those moving between Member States within the EU, particularly those moving from the 10 EU countries which joined the Union in 2004 (the EU10) and the two countries, Bulgaria and Romania, which joined in 2007 (the EU2), and those migrating into the EU from outside in order to compare the extent of integration of the two broad groups. It leaves out of consideration those moving from EU-15 countries to other parts of the EU-15 partly because the issues surrounding integration tend to be less acute for many of the people concerned (such as those moving from Belgium to France or from Denmark to Sweden, for example) and partly because of data reasons, in the sense that it is not possible from the data available to distinguish those moving between EU-15 Member States where integration might be an issue from those where it is unlikely to be11. In particular, though there are signs that movements from the southern EU-15 countries which have been hit hard by the economic and financial crisis to other EU-15 Member States have risen in the recent past, it is difficult to identify these in the data available.

The analysis is based throughout on the European Labour Force Survey (LFS) which contains information on the country of birth of those resident in each of the EU Member States as well as details of their characteristics and employment – and unemployment – situation. Since, however, the LFS is based on a sample of households which is intended to be representative of the population as a whole, but not necessarily of those born abroad, for the EU12 (those which have entered the EU since 2004) in particular, the number of people born abroad who are covered is too small to be representative. These countries are, therefore, not included in the analysis, at least as receiving countries. In addition, for Germany, there is no breakdown of those born abroad by country in the LFS, so it is not possible to identify whether migrants were born outside the EU or in another EU Member State. For this reason, Germany is excluded from the following analysis as well as from the totals for the EU1512.

The interest is in seeing not only how far the situation of migrants from the EU12 and from outside the EU differs from that of the domestic population but also the extent to which it has changed over the period since the economic and financial crisis struck in 2008 – whether the people concerned have been more or less affected by the employment consequences of the crisis and the higher levels of unemployment which have resulted.

Terminology: migrants and native-born

Throughout the following analysis the term ‘migrants’ is used generically to refer to people living in a country other than that in which they were born, while the term ‘native-born’ refers to people living in their country of birth. The term migrants therefore refers here to people moving into EU-15 Member States both from the EU12 countries and from outside the EU. In reports from the EU institutions the term “mobile citizens” is 11 The LFS generally includes information on the country of birth of all respondents. Analysis of movements

from EU-15 countries to either EU-12 or other EU-15 countries is therefore possible – at least in cases where the numbers concerned are sufficiently large to be reliable - but would require a different data set than the one extracted for the analysis undertaken here.

12 There are data on citizenship for Germany which do distinguish those with the nationality of other EU Member States and with non-EU nationality from those with German nationality. These data are not analysed here, however, in order to ensure comparability of the results across countries, though it can be argued that because of the relatively restrictive regulations in place against non-Germans being naturalised, the data concerned are more comparable to country of birth data than for other countries.


November 2012 36

often used to refer to workers moving within the EU but in this case the interest is to compare the situation of two groups of non-natives with that of the native population so that their origin is specifically clarified at all relevant points in the text. This precision is considered to be clearer than the use of alternative terms to describe the same groups.

Age break-down of migrants Migrants tend to be younger than native-born, especially in the case of those born in an EU10 country – i.e. those countries which entered the EU in 2004 – as well as those born in Bulgaria or Romania (i.e. an EU2 country), which entered the EU in 2007. On average, 59% of all men of working-age (here defined as 15-64) from the EU-10 and living in the EU15 were aged between 15 and 34 in 2012 as against 38% of native-born men (Table 6). The figure for men born outside the EU is the same as for native-born (38%), but in this case, only 12% were aged 55-64 as opposed to only 19% of native-born men. Much the same difference in age breakdown is also evident in individual Member States, Sweden being the only country in which the proportion of men born in the EU2 who were aged 15-34 was less than for native-born men and Sweden, Luxembourg and Austria being the only other ones in which this was the case in respect of men born in the EU10. Similarly, France was the only country in which the proportion of those born outside the EU aged 55-64 was larger than for the native born.

Similar differences in the age breakdown of those of working age between migrants and the native-born population are evident for women, though in this case the proportion of those born outside the EU aged 15-34 was also larger than for the native-born (Table 7).

Equally, the proportion of those born in either the EU10 or the EU2 who were aged 15-34 was smaller than in the case of the native-born only in Sweden.

Perhaps unexpectedly, migrants are more likely to be women than men, especially in the case of those from the EU12 countries. On average, therefore, while in 2012 women made up around half of those aged 15-64 who were native-born in the EU15, they accounted for 56-57% of those born in the EU12 countries and 52% of those born outside the EU. In the majority of countries, moreover, women made up more than 60% of migrants born in the EU10 and over 70% in Italy. Women also accounted for more than 60% of those born in the EU2 countries in Greece, Austria and the Netherlands. Table 6 - Division of men aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, 2012

Same From EU10 From EU2 From non-EU 15-34 35-54 55-64 15-34 35-54 55-64 15-34 35-54 55-64 15-34 35-54 55-64 BE 39 42 19 48 43 9 53 39 7 37 51 12 DK 37 43 20 60 27 13 81 14 5 44 47 9 IE 41 41 17 66 31 3 57 40 3 44 52 4 GR 36 45 19 40 37 23 38 57 5 41 52 7 ES 36 46 18 46 47 8 48 46 6 43 50 7 FR 40 41 19 43 42 15 54 40 6 29 48 23 IT 33 47 20 44 46 10 51 45 3 40 53 7 LU 43 39 18 38 53 8 52 43 5 37 51 12 NL 38 42 20 51 38 10 34 42 24 29 56 15 AT 37 45 18 34 49 18 45 45 10 36 49 16 PT 38 44 18

47 51 2 32 57 12

FI 38 40 22 46 47 7 46 54 0 53 36 11 SE 41 40 19 37 43 20 39 40 21 43 45 13 UK 40 41 18 67 28 5 52 46 1 41 48 12 EU15 38 43 19 59 34 8 50 45 5 38 50 12 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which the proportions are higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey


November 2012 37

Table 7 - Division of women aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 (%)

Same From EU10 From EU2 From non-EU 15-34 35-54 55-64 15-34 35-54 55-64 15-34 35-54 55-64 15-34 35-54 55-64 BE 38 42 20 41 46 12 59 33 7 40 47 12 DK 36 43 21 48 43 9 62 31 7 45 46 10 IE 41 42 17 71 27 2 64 32 4 50 46 4 GR 34 45 20 46 40 14 37 51 13 43 47 10 ES 34 46 20 62 31 8 50 46 4 46 47 7 FR 38 42 20 46 33 21 47 43 10 32 46 22 IT 32 47 21 34 52 14 46 48 7 39 51 9 LU 42 40 18 46 51 3 54 42 4 41 49 10 NL 37 43 21 41 49 10 36 53 11 33 54 14 AT 37 45 19 38 44 18 47 46 7 35 49 16 PT 36 44 20

58 37 5 34 54 12

FI 37 39 23 37 49 13 68 15 17 47 45 8 SE 40 40 20 36 40 24 43 37 19 41 47 12 UK 38 43 19 66 29 5 62 32 6 41 47 12 EU15 36 44 20 55 35 9 48 45 6 39 48 13 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which the proportions are higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

Are migrants more or less likely to be in work than the domestic population? There is some variation across the EU5 in the differences in employment rates between the native-born population and migrants. The employment rate of native-born men of working age averaged 69% across the EU15 in 2012, which was markedly less than those born in one of the EU10 countries (81%), though slightly more than those born in Romania or Bulgaria (67%) or outside the EU (66%) (Table 8).

These differences, however, tend to be distorted by the big differences in age composition indicated above, in the sense that employment rates are invariably lower for those aged 55-64, who account for a larger proportion of native-born men of working age than in the case of migrants from the EU12 countries, in particular.

On an age-adjusted basis (i.e. applying the age breakdown for the native-born to those born in other countries), the employment rate men born in the EU10 is reduced to 75%, still more than for the native-born, but only half as much more than the actual rate. Moreover, in most of the countries, the employment rate of men born in the EU10 was lower than for the native-born, the exceptions being France, Italy, Finland and the UK13.

Adjusted for age differences, the employment rates for men born in the EU2 and outside the EU are both reduced to 62%, well below the rate for the native-born rather than only slightly below. For men coming from outside the EU, the rate was above that for the native-born in all countries apart from Italy, though for men born in Bulgaria and

13 The case for adjusting for age differences between those from other countries and the native-born is that the

concern here is with integration and how far there are differences between the native-born and those from abroad in terms of their apparent access to employment. Of course, if the concern were with the impact of those from abroad on the labour market or on society, then the unadjusted figures are of most interest. There is also a case for adjusting the employment rates for differences in education levels. The reason for not doing this here is both that the differences tend to be relatively small and that in many countries the data are not sufficiently reliable when broken down by education level to enable it to be done. This is also the main reason for not breaking down the age distribution of the various groups more finely than in Tables 6 and 7 above, which have been used as weights here for adjustment purposes, even though this would give a more accurate adjusted figure.


November 2012 38

Romania, the rate was higher than for the native-born in 6 countries (Denmark, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the UK, if only marginally in France).

Table 8 - Employment rates of men aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, actual and age-adjusted, 2012

Same From EU10 From EU2 From non-EU Actual Actual Age-adj Actual Age-adj Actual Age-adj Belgium 68.2 71.1 65.2 61.3 59.9 55.2 50.1 Denmark 76.3 74.7 70.5 83.0 79.0 61.2 57.5 Ireland 62.3 71.3 62.2 61.5 49.3 60.8 58.0 Greece 60.9 45.5 48.4 69.7 65.0 57.6 53.6 Spain 61.3 57.8 42.0 52.4 48.4 52.1 50.5 France 68.3 75.8 70.5 72.8 68.5 64.6 59.8 Italy 65.8 72.2 70.9 74.4 72.3 72.3 70.0 Luxembourg 66.5 74.5 58.6 68.7 69.9 72.8 64.7 Netherlands 80.9 82.1 78.7 75.7 74.6 69.8 65.3 Austria 78.4 79.2 74.1 80.0 76.1 73.3 71.2 Portugal 64.6

65.5 56.8 65.6 60.4

Finland 70.4 79.4 77.6 85.9

65.8 64.9 Sweden 77.4 77.2 72.6 80.4 74.0 63.8 60.6 UK 74.7 86.2 79.4 86.4 86.6 75.0 70.2 EU15 excl. DE 68.9 80.5 74.8 67.3 62.5 65.8 62.3 Note: 'Age-adj' are the employment rates assuming the same broad age composition as for those born in the same country. Cells highlighted show the countries in which adjusted employment rates are higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results, including for broad age groups needed to calculate an adjusted figure. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

For women, the picture is similar, though the effect of adjusting for differences in age composition between migrants and the native-born is smaller than for men. While the employment rate of women born in the EU10 was higher than for the native-born in 2012, the size of the difference is reduced from 5 percentage points to 2 percentage points once allowance is made for age composition differences (Table 9). Moreover, after adjustment, there are only four countries in which the rate was higher for women born in the EU10 – Belgium, Ireland, Italy and Luxembourg.

For women born in the EU2 and outside the EU, adjusting for age differences makes relatively little difference to the comparison. The employment rate of those born in the EU2 was, on average, almost 4 percentage points less than for the native-born and there were only four countries in which the rate was higher than for the latter (Italy and Luxembourg as for those born in the EU10 together with Greece and Portugal). For women born outside the EU, however, the rate was as much as 12 percentage points below that for the native-born, though there were two countries in which the rate was higher – Italy again and Portugal.


November 2012 39

Table 9 - Employment rates of women aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, actual and age-adjusted, 2012

Same From EU10 From EU2 From non-EU Actual Actual Age-adj Actual Age-adj Actual Age-adj Belgium 59.4 68.9 62.0 47.6 43.6 35.9 32.6 Denmark 72.0 69.8 70.6 56.6 53.9 52.2 50.2 Ireland 55.4 62.6 57.7 55.3 45.4 46.6 44.7 Greece 41.9 33.2 35.7 54.1 54.6 39.7 39.2 Spain 50.9 31.6 32.6 48.5 50.8 47.8 46.3 France 61.4 62.0 61.0 49.2 47.7 45.8 43.2 Italy 46.7 55.8 52.9 58.8 58.4 46.9 46.8 Luxembourg 55.1 71.7 55.5 66.4 60.4 50.6 47.1 Netherlands 72.5 72.2 68.1 65.7

54.5 52.8

Austria 69.2 65.5 60.9 64.0 59.8 54.4 52.6 Portugal 58.1

69.3 66.3 64.1 60.6

Finland 68.6 65.2 66.6 52.8

47.6 46.3 Sweden 75.0 67.7 65.4 66.1 61.8 53.7 50.3 UK 66.7 67.3 61.8 63.5 66.3 51.7 48.8 EU15 excl. DE 58.5 63.6 60.2 55.4 54.8 48.7 46.5 Note: 'Age-adj' are the employment rates assuming the same broad age composition as for those born in the same country. Cells highlighted show the countries in which adjusted employment rates are higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results, including for broad age groups needed to calculate an adjusted figure. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

Has the employment of migrants been hit disproportionately by the crisis? The employment of men has declined in most Member States since the onset of the economic and financial crisis in 2008. The extent to which employment of migrants has been affected relative to that of the native-born, however, varies between countries. Overall in the EU15, the employment rate of native-born men fell by 4.6 percentage points between 2008 and 2012 (Table 10). This was slightly more than the rate of those born in the EU10 (4.1 percentage points). In 7 of the 13 countries for which there are data, however, the employment rate of men from the EU10 fell by more than for native-born.

The employment rate of men born in Bulgaria and Romania, on the other hand, fell by much more on average than that of the native-born. This was also the case in 9 of the countries, most especially in Greece, Spain and Portugal, where the rate of those born in the EU2 countries fell precipitously. The employment rate of men born outside the EU declined by more than that of the native-born as well, though the difference was smaller. The reduction was less than for the latter (or in the case of Luxembourg, the rate rose instead of falling) only in four countries.

For women too, employment rates of migrants fell by more on average across the EU15 over the 4-year period than for the native-born, though only slightly more (Table 11). In this case, there were a majority of countries where the rate for women born in the EU10 countries fell by less than for the native-born or rose by more. There were also 6 countries in which the rate for women from Bulgaria and Romania rose by more than that of the native-born or rose instead of falling. By contrast, there were only three countries – Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria – where the employment rate of women born outside the EU increased and the first two of these were the only ones in which the change in the rate was more favourable than for native-born women (in Austria, the increase was less than for the latter).


November 2012 40

In sum, migrants, both men and women, from Bulgaria and Romania and from outside the EU have fared less well than the native-born over the crisis period in most EU15 Member States. The experience, however, has been more mixed in respect of migrants from the EU10 countries. In this case, in the majority of countries, men from these countries have fared slightly worse than the naïve-born whereas women have fared better.

Table 10 - Changes in employment rates of men aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, 2008-2012 (Percentage point change)

Same From EU10 From EU2 From non-EU 2008-12 2008-12 2008-12 2008-12 Belgium -1.0 -9.4 -12.4 -4.9 Denmark -6.0 4.3 -17.0 -11.4 Ireland -12.3 -19.4 -6.1 -12.6 Greece -13.1 -17.0 -20.2 -29.1 Spain -12.0 -33.6 -26.4 -19.9 France -1.4 9.5 2.6 -3.3 Italy -3.5 -7.3 -9.3 -8.7 Luxembourg -1.8 -7.7 0.2 15.2 Netherlands -2.9 7.1 -6.6 -4.5 Austria -0.8 4.7 5.1 -0.3 Portugal -8.8

-30.7 -14.0

Finland -2.7 1.5 -14.1 1.1 Sweden -0.6 -0.8 5.2 -2.7 UK -2.4 -1.2 -5.0 -0.4 EU15 excl. DE -4.6 -4.1 -13.8 -7.7 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which reductions in adjusted employment rates were larger than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results, including for broad age groups needed to calculate an adjusted figure. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

Table 11 - Changes in employment rates of women aged 15-64 by country of birth in the EU15, 2008-2012 (Percentage point change)

Same From EU10 From EU2 From non-EU 2008-12 2008-12 2008-12 2008-12 Belgium 1.2 18.2 3.0 -0.7 Denmark -3.8 -2.0 -18.4 -4.5 Ireland -4.6 -10.2 5.7 -11.0 Greece -6.7 -17.0 -6.3 -8.2 Spain -2.9 -19.8 -8.0 -12.1 France -0.2 11.9 -18.2 -1.4 Italy -0.1 4.9 -0.4 -3.2 Luxembourg 4.7 6.9 29.9 10.8 Netherlands -0.1 3.4 -3.2 0.6 Austria 1.3 4.3 5.6 1.2 Portugal -3.8

-13.3 -4.7

Finland -0.7 3.6

-2.7 Sweden 0.5 -3.2 4.5 -1.2 UK -0.2 -6.2 -11.5 -2.6 EU15 excl. DE -0.9 -2.1 -3.8 -4.5 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which reductions in adjusted employment rates were larger or increases smaller than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results, including for broad age groups needed to calculate an adjusted figure. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey


November 2012 41

Are migrants more likely to be unemployed than native-born? As might be expected from the above, both men and women are more likely to be unemployed if they are migrants than if they are native-born. There is not, however, a one-to-one relationship between employment rates and unemployment since migrants in general tend to be less likely to be economically inactive than native-born, though not in the case of women from outside the EU who are more likely to be inactive and less so if the unemployment figures are adjusted for difference in the age distribution. The proportion of migrants of working age from the EU2 countries and from outside the EU who were unemployed in 2012 was, therefore, much higher than for the native-born both on average and in individual Member States. Note that the data presented here refer to the number of unemployed in relation to the population aged 15-64 so that the implications for activity rates can be seen (i.e. aggregating the employment rates with the proportion of the age group unemployed gives the activity rate). This means that the figures presented are not unemployment rates as usually measured. Since activity rates on an adjusted basis are not too dissimilar between the native-born and men and women from the EU12, the figures presented indicate fairly well the difference in unemployment rates. This also holds for men from outside the EU, but not for women, whose activity rates tend to be lower than for the native-born. Accordingly, their unemployment rates as conventionally measured are even higher than shown here.

The relatively high unemployment among those from both the EU2 and outside the EU is evident whether the figures are adjusted for the different age composition of migrants or not. The only exceptions are Denmark, where the adjusted figure for men born in Bulgaria and Romania was lower than for the native-born, and Ireland where unemployment among those born outside the EU, both actual and age-adjusted, was less than for the native-born (Table 12).

Table 12 - Unemployment of men by country of birth in the EU15, actual and age adjusted, 2012 (% men aged 15-64)

Same From EU10 From EU2 From non-EU Actual Actual Age-adj Actual Age-adj Actual Age-adj Belgium 4.2 8.7 8.8 17.7 15.2 15.9 14.9 Denmark 5.8 11.1 12.9 9.1 3.8 11.6 11.2 Ireland 13.5 18.1 19.8 20.8 19.8 12.7 12.0 Greece 15.3 21.0 20.3 25.2 28.6 32.3 32.1 Spain 17.9 26.1 25.2 34.7 34.6 32.9 33.0 France 6.6 9.9 8.6 12.0 14.5 13.9 13.9 Italy 7.1 8.0 8.2 10.8 11.3 10.2 10.1 Luxembourg 2.4 6.7 7.3 8.5 7.0 7.7 7.3 Netherlands 3.9 6.6 5.5

9.2 9.6


26.2 18.6 18.5 19.1

Finland 6.3 6.8 5.8 14.1

15.8 14.9 Sweden 5.5 7.4 7.7 6.0 6.4 16.4 16.5 UK 7.0 4.7 5.6 5.4 4.7 7.1 7.5 EU15 excl. DE 8.7 7.8 8.6 19.2 19.7 15.6 15.3 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which adjusted unemployment rates are higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results, including for broad age groups needed to calculate an adjusted figure. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

The proportion of men born in one of the EU10 countries who were unemployed was marginally lower than that of the native-born in 2012, though this has more to do with the distribution of the former across countries – i.e. men from the EU10 tend to be relatively concentrated in the countries with relatively low unemployment – than with low


November 2012 42

unemployment among them per se. Indeed, there are only 2 countries, Finland and the UK, where the proportion of men unemployed on an age-adjusted basis, was lower than that of the native-born. In all the other countries, unemployment was higher and in most, significantly higher.

It is relevant to note that in a number of the countries in which unemployment of migrants was above that of native-born men, employment rates were also higher, which implies lower rates of economic inactivity than of native-born men. This is the case in Italy in particular, for migrants from all three groups of countries as well as in France for those born in the EU10 and EU2, in Luxembourg and Austria for those born in the EU2 and outside the EU, in Ireland and Sweden for those born in the EU2 and in Finland and the UK for those born outside the EU.

The change over the crisis period in unemployment among migrants relative to that of native-born men has followed a similar pattern to the change in the employment rate.

The picture is much the same for women as for men, in that women migrants are more likely to be unemployed than those born in the country in question (Table 13). This is true both on average for the three groups of migrants and in individual countries, the exceptions being Greece, France and Finland in respect of women born in the EU10. In all the EU15 Member States, therefore, the proportion of women of working age born in both the EU2 and outside the EU who were unemployed in 2012 was larger than for native-born women, in most countries much larger.

Table 13 - Unemployment of women by country of birth in the EU15, actual and age adjusted, 2012 (% women aged 15-64)

Same From EU10 From EU2 From non-EU Actual Actual Age-adj Actual Age-adj Actual Age-adj Belgium 3.8 5.7 5.5 10.8 10.1 10.4 9.5 Denmark 5.1 13.8 12.6 17.2 17.3 10.8 9.8 Ireland 6.3 11.2 10.4 11.4 8.5 8.7 8.0 Greece 16.1 12.2 14.2 17.6 16.6 21.5 20.1 Spain 15.5 15.6 17.6 29.9 25.7 26.7 25.8 France 6.5 4.5 5.3 9.4 7.6 10.8 10.5 Italy 6.0 9.1 9.6 9.9 9.3 9.4 8.8 Luxembourg 2.2 3.7 4.9 11.9 16.8 9.0 7.8 Netherlands 3.4 6.7 7.1 14.3

7.0 6.9


19.7 24.7 15.7 15.0

Finland 4.9 3.5 2.5 30.6

13.7 14.8 Sweden 5.0 9.6 10.3 9.2 11.3 11.9 11.7 UK 5.1 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.2 6.9 7.0 EU15 excl. DE 7.5 7.8 7.7 16.4 14.9 12.7 12.2 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which adjusted unemployment rates are higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results, including for broad age groups needed to calculate an adjusted figure. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

As for men, there are a number of countries where both unemployment and the employment rate of migrants was higher than for native-born women, implying low levels of economic inactivity in the countries concerned. These countries are Belgium, Ireland, Italy and Luxembourg in respect of those born in the EU10. In Italy, as for men, this is also the case for those born in the EU2 and outside the EU and in Luxembourg, in respect of women born in the EU2. In Greece, it is the case for both those born in the EU2 and in Portugal for both those born in the EU2 and those born outside the EU.


November 2012 43

As for men, the changes in the proportion of women unemployed over the crisis period are broadly a mirror image of the changes in employment rates, though there are more cases where unemployment of migrants rose by more than that of native-born between 2008 and 2012 than in respect of employment. There were, therefore, only four countries in which unemployment among women from the EU10 countries rose by less than the native-born, or declined instead increasing (Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Finland) and only two where this was the case for those from Bulgaria and Romania (Italy and Austria) and for those from outside the EU (Luxembourg and Finland).

In sum, unemployment tends both to be higher among women who are migrants than among those who are native-born and to have risen by more over the crisis period.

Are migrants more likely to be in temporary jobs than native-born? Many more migrants in employment work in jobs with temporary contracts than those born in the country in which they live, or at least this is the case for those aged 25 and over. For younger people, among whom temporary working is particularly prevalent, the reverse is the case for those from both EU10 and EU2 countries, while for those from outside the EU, the proportions tend to be similar to those for the native-born. The conclusions to be drawn from this, however, are not straightforward since many of the young people concerned are employed in traineeships or apprenticeships or for a probationary period before having a permanent contract of employment rather than in precarious jobs as such. The focus here, therefore, is on those aged 25 and over who are much less likely to be employed on traineeships and for whom a temporary contract of employment is more likely to denote a relatively precarious job.

For men from an EU10 country aged 25-64, the proportion employed under temporary contracts was larger than for the native born in 2012 in all EU15 countries for which there are data, except Denmark and Ireland, the extent of the difference being marked in most of the countries (Table 14). For men from Bulgaria and Romania, the difference generally was even more pronounced, with the proportion in temporary jobs being smaller than for native-born men only in Austria and on average across the EU15 as a whole being over three times larger than for the latter. For men from outside the EU, the proportion in temporary work was larger than for the native-born in all countries without exception and twice as large overall.

Much the same is the case for women from these three groups of countries. For women from an EU10 country, the proportion of those employed who were in temporary jobs in 2012 was larger than that of native-born women in all EU15 Member States for which there are data, except Spain and Finland (Table 15). Overall, however, the proportion of women from the EU10 in such jobs in the EU15 was the same on average as for the native-born, a curiosity explained by the relative concentration of the former in countries, such as the UK or Ireland, where temporary working is relatively uncommon.

For women from Bulgaria and Romania, there is only one country, the UK, in which the proportion in temporary jobs was less than for the native-born and the average proportion in the EU15 as a whole was twice that for the latter. For those from outside the EU, there was again only one country in which the relative number in temporary jobs was smaller, in this case, Italy.


November 2012 44

Table 14 - Temporary working of men aged 25-64 by country of birth, 2012

% Men employees aged 25-64 Percentage-point change, 2008-2012

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 4.0 10.9 11.0 14.1 0.3 6.7 -6.1 1.6 Denmark 4.6 1.5

11.6 0.7 -2.8

4.2

Ireland 7.0 5.7 7.7 12.2 3.4 -3.0 -14.8 1.2 Greece 6.9 19.9 21.3 16.3 -0.7 14.1 -1.2 1.5 Spain 17.3 48.0 50.6 36.5 -1.7 13.7 -3.3 -14.6 France 9.3 16.0 21.8 18.2 0.7 -5.9 -31.8 3.4 Italy 9.5 21.5 20.1 14.4 1.0 9.1 -8.6 1.8 Luxembourg 3.5 13.7 22.2 13.5 0.5 5.1 22.2 5.0 Netherlands 10.7 15.5 22.2 19.1 2.5 -30.1 2.6 -1.6 Austria 3.7 6.5 3.0 5.6 0.5 0.7 -5.6 0.7 Portugal 17.7

31.3 23.1 1.2

-8.3 -14.2

Finland 8.1 22.8

15.9 1.0

-3.4 Sweden 7.8 12.8 25.2 19.8 -0.1 1.4 7.9 2.1 UK 3.2 8.8 11.5 6.6 0.8 3.5 1.6 -0.4 EU15 excl. DE 8.9 10.8 27.9 17.0 0.3 1.3 -5.5 -4.2

Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which temporary employment is higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

Table 15 - Temporary working of women aged 25-64 by country of birth, 2012

% Women employees aged 25-64 Percentage-point change, 2008-2012

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 5.9 10.3 15.3 17.0 -1.3 -6.2 -8.8 -1.9 Denmark 7.0 11.1 15.9 11.7 0.5 -3.2 -4.6 -0.7 Ireland 7.1 8.4 9.8 10.4 1.0 -3.9 -10.3 0.6 Greece 9.2 17.4 32.0 20.9 -2.2 5.5 13.3 1.4 Spain 21.9 17.7 39.8 32.2 -2.7

-5.1 -7.7

France 11.7 23.2 21.8 17.9 -0.2 1.7 7.4 -0.2 Italy 12.9 16.1 15.4 10.8 -0.4 -5.0 1.2 -2.6 Luxembourg 4.6 13.4 8.0 8.9 -0.7 13.4

-1.3

Netherlands 12.6 33.5 54.0 20.9 1.0 0.8 33.8 -3.4 Austria 5.0 9.6 7.0 6.0 0.4 3.1 -1.7 -1.1 Portugal 17.5

39.5 24.2 -1.7

-6.7

Finland 13.5 12.6

28.0 -0.6 8.6

0.1 Sweden 10.0 15.5 19.4 23.6 -1.0 -1.7 -4.7 -1.5 UK 4.4 7.0 4.2 6.9 0.8 -0.1 -3.5 0.1 EU15 excl. DE 11.2 11.2 23.3 17.1 -0.4 -2.6 -5.6 -3.7 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which temporary employment is higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

The changes over the crisis period in the relative numbers of migrants and others employed in temporary jobs are difficult to interpret. In general, the global recession which hit the EU in 2008 led to significant job losses in most countries in the EU15 in 2009 which were disproportionately concentrated on those employed in temporary jobs since it was much easier for employers not to renew fixed-term contracts which had come to an end than to make ‘permanent’ employees redundant. Subsequently, however, there has been some tendency for employers to take on additional staff on


November 2012 45

temporary contracts rather than permanent ones because of uncertainty attached to future economic prospects.

The evidence suggests that there was some difference in experience between men and women, as well as between migrants from different countries. For men from the EU10 countries, the proportion of employees working in temporary jobs increased by more than for the native-born between 2008 and 2012, or went up while the proportion for the native-born went down, in most EU15 countries for which there are data. This was also the case for men from outside the EU. For men from Bulgaria and Romania, however, the opposite was the case and there were only three countries – the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK – where the proportion of men increased by more than that of the native-born, which might, of course, be the consequence of a bigger reduction during the recession.

For women, the proportion of employees from EU10 countries in temporary jobs went up by more than that of the native-born – or rose while the latter declined – in a minority of countries and fell by more on average across the EU15 than for the native-born. For women born in the EU2 and outside the EU, there was also a minority of countries in which the relative number in temporary employment rose while that of the native-born went down, in these cases, only four countries in respect of those from the EU2 and just two in respect of those from outside the EU.

As indicated above, it cannot necessarily be concluded from this that the employment conditions of women migrants have become more favourable relative to native-born women over the crisis period. Although the relative number in temporary jobs may have declined – and correspondingly the proportion in permanent jobs may have increased – it is, nevertheless, the case in many countries that a smaller proportion of women migrants aged 25-64 were employed in 2012 than four years earlier.

Are migrants more likely to be in part-time jobs than native-born? As well as being more likely to have temporary contracts of employment, there is some tendency for migrants to be employed in part-time jobs to a greater extent than the domestic population. This applies to men in particular, again limiting the comparison to those aged 25-64 in order to exclude the many young people below this age combining employment with education. In 2012, although the proportion of men in employment from the EU10 working part-time in the EU15 was on average much the same as for native-born men, in most countries (8 of the 13 for which there are data), it was larger (Table 16).

The proportion was also larger for men from Bulgaria and Romania than for the native-born in most countries (in 9 of the 13) and in this case, this was also true on average across the EU15 as a whole. Indeed, in Spain and Greece, where the number of men from these countries is relatively large, the proportion working part-time in 2012 was 13% and 16%, respectively, considerably greater than in 2008 before the crisis hit.

The relative number of men in work employed part-time was even higher for those from outside the EU, reaching an average 13% in 2012 in the EU15, almost twice the figure for the native-born. In this case, there are only two countries, Luxembourg and Portugal, where the proportion was smaller than for the native-born and four countries – Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK – where the proportion was over 15%.

The proportion of men working part-time has increased in most EU15 countries over the crisis period and in the majority of countries, it has risen more among migrants than among the domestic population. This is especially the case for those from Bulgaria and Romania, for whom there were only two countries, Italy and the Netherlands, where the relative number of those in work employed part-time did not increase between 2008 and 2012, the average rise amounting to as much as 7 percentage points over these four years.


November 2012 46

Table 16 - Part-time employment of men aged 25-64 by country of birth in the EU15, 2012

% Total men employed aged 25-64 %-point change, 2008-2012

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 8.4 3.2 12.0 10.3 1.6 -2.1 3.8 -1.0 Denmark 7.7 9.3 6.9 13.8 0.7 4.3

-1.3

Ireland 10.2 11.7 14.4 15.3 5.6 9.5 11.1 -1.7 Greece 3.4 2.4 15.7 13.4 1.3 2.4 15.0 11.1 Spain 4.8 6.1 12.8 14.1 2.0 0.4 11.2 9.2 France 5.4 5.6 6.6 9.6 0.8 -3.1 6.6 2.6 Italy 5.5 4.2 8.5 11.0 1.4 2.8 -0.5 4.6 Luxembourg 4.7 4.9 3.7 3.9 1.4 4.9 3.7 1.4 Netherlands 16.7 19.8 8.6 20.7 1.6 10.4 -11.8 4.0 Austria 7.0 7.3 8.2 8.4 1.1 -1.1 4.2 0.8 Portugal 7.9 5.7 7.9 5.9 3.9

7.9 3.1

Finland 6.8

10.4 0.9

5.2 Sweden 9.1 10.3 13.8 16.0 0.0 0.4 4.2 1.6 UK 7.6 5.7 7.7 16.6 1.6 0.6 1.7 5.1 EU15 excl. DE 6.9 6.8 9.9 13.2 1.6 1.8 7.1 4.9 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which part-time employment is higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

For women in employment aged 25-64, there was in most cases less of a difference in the relative number working part-time between migrants and those born in the country in which they live. While in 2012 the relative number was larger on average across the EU15 among those from the EU10 than among the latter, in half the countries, the proportion was smaller (Table 17). For women from the EU2, the average proportion employed part-time was also larger than for the native-born, but in this case it was smaller in the majority of countries, though not in the countries where the numbers from these two countries were largest - Spain and Italy in particular – in both of which the proportion was considerably greater than for the native-born. For women from outside the EU, the proportion working part-time was larger than for native-born women both on average across the EU and in the majority of Member States (9 of the 14 for which there are data).

As in the case of men, part-time working tended to increase more among women migrants over the crisis period than among the native-born. This was especially the case for women from the EU10 and EU2 countries, the proportion employed part-time increasing by 7 percentage points and 9 percentage points, respectively, between 2008 and 2012 as opposed to a rise of only 1 percentage point for native-born women. The increase among women from the EU10 was particularly large in Ireland and the UK, where they are relatively numerous. This was also a large increase in part-time working in these two countries among from Bulgaria and Romania, as there was in Spain and Greece, where migrants from the EU2 represent a bigger proportion of women in employment. The growth of part-time working, though in most cases on a smaller scale, was even more widespread among women from outside the EU, the proportion in part-time jobs declining over the 4-year period in only two of the 14 countries for which there are data and increasing in the other 12, apart from the UK, by more than that of the native-born.


November 2012 47

Table 17 - Part-time employment of women, 25-64, by country of birth in the EU15, 2012

% Total women employed aged 25-64 Percentage-point change, 2008-2012

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 43.8 41.5 30.4 47.4 2.0 6.1 -5.3 7.7 Denmark 28.5 36.1 37.5 31.2 -1.0 2.5 16.3 1.1 Ireland 33.5 29.7 35.4 28.6 0.2 13.8 27.5 1.0 Greece 10.1 20.1 18.4 24.7 1.5 12.6 11.3 7.9 Spain 22.0 56.1 38.3 31.8 1.7

17.6 2.9

France 29.0 34.6 31.2 32.5 0.4 -4.4 -17.2 -2.1 Italy 28.7 35.5 41.7 43.1 2.3 4.1 2.8 5.8 Luxembourg 39.9 15.3 17.1 38.2 -1.4 0.6

7.2

Netherlands 76.4 59.9 38.6 70.7 1.2 -4.1 -16.6 7.5 Austria 47.7 44.5 34.1 44.9 3.0 6.2 -3.1 6.8 Portugal 13.4 26.5 10.5 16.0 -0.4

-1.2 1.6

Finland 15.8 13.4

21.8 1.6 -1.0

3.6 Sweden 35.5 38.4 30.5 35.6 -2.7 3.4 -5.4 -2.9 UK 42.3 32.7 31.7 34.1 0.6 7.7 13.5 0.3 EU15 excl. DE 33.6 35.8 38.0 36.9 1.2 6.8 9.4 2.7 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which part-time employment is higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

Do migrants tend to be over-qualified for the jobs they do? The above analysis indicates that in most countries both men and women migrants are more likely to be employed in temporary and part-time jobs than non-migrants. It is also the case that they are more likely to work in jobs which are not in line with their qualifications – or at least their educational attainment levels. This can most easily be seen by focusing on those with tertiary-level education – i.e. with a university degree or equivalent – and examining the kinds of job that they do as compared with native-born men and women.

In 2012, just over 80% of men in the EU15 with tertiary education worked as managers, professionals or technicians (i.e. the occupations covered by categories 1, 2 and 3 of the ISCO 08 classification system). This compares with only 56% of men from the EU10 countries and just 40% of those from Bulgaria and Romania. While the proportion for men from outside the EU was larger, at 66%, it is still significantly below the figure for the native-born (Table 18).

There are only two countries, Spain and Luxembourg, where the proportion of men with tertiary education from the EU10 working in these high level occupations was more than that of the native-born, in both cases, countries where the number of men from the countries concerned was relatively small. In Ireland and the UK, where the number was much higher, the proportion in the jobs concerned was considerably smaller (only 36% in Ireland). By implication, in these countries, therefore, a substantial number of men from these countries were employed in jobs which seem not to require the level of education they had.

There are no countries in which the proportion of men born in Bulgaria and Romania or coming from outside the EU with tertiary education working in high-level jobs was larger than that of native-born men. The proportion was particularly small in Greece, Spain and Italy, where men from Bulgaria and Romania were most numerous.

The proportion of university-educated men from outside the EU in the jobs concerned was also much smaller in these three countries than elsewhere, being well below half in


November 2012 48

Spain and only just over 40% in the Greece and Italy, over 30 percentage points smaller than for native-born men.

Table 18 - Proportion of men and women aged 25-64 with tertiary education employed as managers, professionals and technicians (ISCO 1-3) by country of birth, 2012 (% total tertiary-educated}

Men Women

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 81.9 71.3 58.0 60.4 78.5 54.4 65.9 58.9 Denmark 88.3

69.9 88.9 69.4

79.3

Ireland 73.3 36.1

64.2 72.5 21.1 31.2 65.1 Greece 72.5

20.7 41.4 79.3 65.6 10.5 27.3

Spain 66.2 83.2 12.4 46.3 66.9 75.0 13.6 30.8 France 83.5

71.9 79.2

69.5

Italy 86.4 66.8 34.0 42.0 80.1 46.9 41.7 30.2 Luxembourg 96.6 97.1 85.9 95.6 97.3 92.8 89.1 85.6 Netherlands 86.6 79.9 71.7 76.0 85.5 57.2 57.8 67.7 Austria 72.2 70.6

60.9 84.4 68.9 56.1 58.1

Portugal 90.1

83.5 88.3

78.7 Finland 84.5

67.1 77.0 66.5

66.6

Sweden 86.4 59.4 60.0 59.8 88.5 65.6 71.7 65.8 UK 83.1 52.7 67.2 71.5 77.4 41.3 43.0 70.1 EU15 excl. DE 80.5 56.3 39.8 66.1 78.0 47.3 38.6 60.1 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which the proportion employed in these occupations is smaller than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results, figures in italics that the data are relatively uncertain. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

For women, the difference between migrants and the native-born in the proportion of those with tertiary education in managerial and professional jobs tends to be even wider. Less than half of women from the EU10 with this level of education were employed in these jobs in 2012 and only in Spain – where the number is relatively small – was the proportion larger than for the native-born. In the UK, the figure was only just over 40% and in Ireland, as low as 21%.

The proportion of women from Bulgaria and Romania in such jobs was smaller still on average (less than 40%). As in the case of men, there were no countries where it was larger than for native-born women and many in which it was considerably smaller, most especially in Greece and Spain (where the proportion was less than 15%).

Again as in the case of men, the proportion of women from outside the EU with tertiary education in high-level jobs was also particularly small in Greece and Spain, as it was in Italy (well under a third in all three countries), though there are many countries where the proportion in some way below that of the native-born.

The counterpart of the relatively small proportion of highly educated migrants working in managerial and professional jobs is a relatively large proportion working in skilled and semi-skilled manual jobs (predominantly in manufacturing and construction), in the case of men, and sales and service jobs, in the case of women. This is particularly so in respect of men from the EU10 and the EU2. The proportion of the former employed in skilled and semi-skilled jobs, therefore, averaged over a quarter (27%) across the EU15 and was especially large in Ireland and the UK as well as Sweden, where they are relatively numerous (Table 19). The proportion of men from the EU2 in these jobs was even larger on average (37%) and was especially large in Spain (over 60%, many of them employed in the construction industry), where they account for a significant number of people of working-age, particularly of those under 35.


November 2012 49

Table 19 - Proportion of men and women aged 25-64 with tertiary education employed as skilled and semi-skilled worker (ISCO 7+8) and as sales and service workers (ISCO 5), by country of birth, 2012 (% total tertiary-educated}

Men - Skilled+semi-skilled manual Women - Sales+service

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 4.3 17.0 13.5 9.6 5.2 5.9 4.9 13.2 Denmark 2.6

10.9 5.0 11.7

8.4

Ireland 9.8 28.7 7.2 10.8 11.7 40.1 37.4 18.8 Greece 3.8

27.1 27.3 8.1 12.5 35.4 25.7

Spain 14.8 0.0 60.5 21.9 11.6 0.0 20.6 26.9 France 3.8

6.9 6.8

15.1


14.9 6.7 19.1 25.0 19.0

Portugal 1.3

4.9 4.2

8.6 Finland 5.1

7.3 8.5 18.5

19.8

Sweden 3.8 33.0 24.5 16.7 6.5 13.6 16.0 19.1 UK 5.2 31.4 21.6 5.2 12.7 22.3 14.4 17.0 EU15 excl. DE 6.1 27.0 36.9 9.8 8.6 21.1 18.8 18.6 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which the proportion employed in these occupations is larger than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results, figures in italics that the data are relatively uncertain. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

The proportion of men from outside the EU with tertiary education employed in such jobs tended to be smaller than in respect of those from the EU12 countries but it was still larger than for the native-born both on average and in all countries apart from the UK, where it was the same. Again this was especially the case in Greece, Spain and Italy.

For women, there was less of a difference in the proportion of those with tertiary education employed in sales and services jobs between women from the EU12 and those from outside the EU. In each case, however, the proportion was significantly smaller than for the native-born both on average in the EU15 (at least 10 percentage points larger) and in all countries, apart from Spain in respect of women from the EU10 and Belgium in respect of those from the EU2. Again the difference was especially wide in Ireland for women from the EU10 (where 40% of those with tertiary education worked in these kinds of job, over three times more than for the native-born) and Greece for women from Bulgaria and Romania (where the figure was 35%, over four times larger than for the native-born). Again too, the proportion of those from outside the EU employed in the jobs concerned was particularly large in the three southern Member States, Greece, Spain and Italy (over a quarter in each case).

The relative number of men from the EU12 or from outside the EU with tertiary qualifications working in elementary jobs (as labourers, cleaners and so on) tends to be less than in the case of skilled manual workers, but it was still much higher in 2012 in most countries than in respect of native-born men. This is especially so for those from the EU10 in Ireland (where 20% worked in elementary jobs) and the UK (10%) and for those from Bulgaria and Romania in Greece, Spain and Italy, once again (over a quarter in each of the last two countries) (Table 20). The proportion was also relatively large in Italy (17%) and to a lesser extent in Austria (11%) for men from outside the EU.


November 2012 50

Table 20 - Proportion of men and women aged 25-64 with tertiary education employed in elementary occupations (ISCO 9) by country of birth, 2012 (% total tertiary-educated)

Men Women

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 0.5 0.0 12.9 8.2 0.6 17.6 15.7 9.9 Denmark 1.0

9.3 0.9 3.5

4.8

Ireland 2.1 20.3 17.8 5.6 0.8 17.4 25.8 6.6 Greece 0.5

19.0 7.7 0.6 21.9 43.6 29.8

Spain 1.5 0.0 25.4 9.1 1.8 11.3 38.1 22.6 France 0.8

3.7 1.0

5.4


11.2 0.5 2.9 7.8 9.5

Portugal 0.6

2.3 0.4

7.0 Finland 1.0

9.1 0.8 3.5

7.0

Sweden 0.4 1.1 6.7 7.3 0.4 11.4 5.8 6.6 UK 1.0 9.8 11.2 3.8 0.9 18.4 29.9 2.7 EU15 excl. DE 0.9 8.5 18.7 5.6 0.9 14.8 25.1 9.4 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which the proportion employed in these occupations is larger than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results, figures in italics that the data are relatively uncertain. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

For women from the three groups of countries, the proportion with tertiary education working in these low level jobs was even larger than for men and in most countries well above the proportion of the native-born (which was 1% or less in all countries apart from Spain). On average, 15% of women from the EU10 with this level of education were employed in such jobs in the EU15 in 2012, the figure rising to 17-18% in Ireland and the UK, while for women from Bulgaria and Romania, the proportion averaged 25% in the EU15 and was around 40% in both Greece and Spain.

For women from outside the EU, the figure was smaller on average (just under 10%) but was almost 30% in both Greece and Italy and around 23% in Spain.

In sum, therefore, the evidence suggests that in most EU15 countries, a great many tertiary-educated migrants are in jobs which do not require the level of qualification that they have, a significant number of them, especially women, in elementary manual jobs which demand little in the way of qualifications at all. The extent of over-qualification is particularly evident for men and women from Bulgaria and Romania, a large number of whom are employed in manual jobs in the case of men (over half on average across the EU15) or in manual and sales and service jobs in the case of women (around 45%).

Are migrants more likely to have been made redundant than native-born? A much larger proportion of men from the EU12 and from outside the EU who were out of work in 2012 and who had left their job within the past 8 years had been made redundant or had been dismissed than those born in the EU15 Member State in question. For men from the EU10, this was the case, on average, for 36% of those concerned across the EU15 as against 28% of the native-born, the figure rising to 70% in Ireland, and there were only two countries, Spain and the UK, where the proportion was smaller than for the native-born (Table 21).For men from Bulgaria and Romania, the average proportion (35%) was also larger than for the latter and there was only one country


November 2012 51

(Spain) where it was smaller. For men from outside the EU, the situation was similar, with the proportion made redundant being again on average larger than for the native-born (34%) and only two countries (Ireland and the UK) in which the proportion was smaller.

Table 21 - Proportion of men and women aged 25-64 not in work and having left their job with the previous 8 years who were dismissed or made redundant by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 (%)

Men Women

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 14.0 24.6 24.6 24.2 14.3 13.5 7.8 16.1 Denmark 33.1

41.1 20.6 26.5

21.4

Ireland 55.3 69.7 72.8 48.1 29.8 29.1 18.4 20.3 Greece 30.7 31.1 67.3 53.8 30.7 31.4 42.3 50.2 Spain 27.3 4.1 26.9 30.2 21.0 17.4 26.3 20.3 France 19.4

31.2 18.1

20.5

Italy 31.3 45.0 46.9 47.1 26.3 31.3 31.9 35.2 Luxembourg 4.3

15.7 10.7

10.5

Netherlands 21.9

34.2 17.4 25.5 40.7 16.6 Austria 11.0 30.5 19.3 29.0 9.2 19.7 12.4 17.7 Portugal 35.6

44.7 32.1

32.8

Finland 23.1

28.7 10.6

14.3 Sweden 25.8 35.9 76.7 33.1 16.5 16.5 14.5 16.2 UK 30.4 23.3

24.4 15.5 6.0 6.7 11.6

EU15 excl. DE 27.7 36.1 34.6 33.8 20.8 16.3 28.4 21.6 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which the proportion is higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results; figures in italics that the data are relatively uncertain Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

This suggests that the men from outside the country were generally more vulnerable to losing their job and/or, which is also the case in practice, that they were more likely to be employed in sectors in which job losses were relatively large, manufacturing and construction especially. It also suggests that it was less the case in Spain and the UK than elsewhere.

In the case of women, the picture is less uniform across the EU15. For women from the EU10, the average proportion of those out of work who had been made redundant or dismissed was less than for native-born women in 2012 (16% as against 21%) and there were an equal number of countries in which the proportion was larger as there were in which it was smaller. The countries where it was smaller include Ireland and the UK, where the number of women from these countries was particularly high.

For women from Bulgaria and Romania, the proportion made redundant was overall larger than for the native-born but there were only a bare majority of countries (5 out of 9) where this was the case. These include, however, Greece, Spain and Italy, where Bulgarians and Romanians are especially numerous.

For women from outside the EU, the proportion of those out of work made redundant was, in aggregate, larger than that of the native-born, though only slightly so, and there 6 out of the 14 Member States in which it was smaller, including Ireland and the UK, as in the case of men.


November 2012 52

Are migrants likely to remain unemployed longer than native-born? If men and women from the EU12 become unemployed, they tend, on average, to remain out of work for less time than those born in the EU15 country in question. This remains the case if explicit allowance is made for the fact that those moving from an EU12 country are less likely as a group to be long-term unemployed than the native-born because some of them will have been in the country for a relatively short time. The proportion of the unemployed who have been out of work for a year or more – who are ‘long-term unemployed’ – was, therefore, smaller for these in 2012 than for the native-born. On the other hand, the proportion has increased by more than for the latter since the crisis began. This is especially the case for men and women from Bulgaria and Romania, who experienced a substantial rise in long-term unemployment (by over 25 percentage points for both men and women) (Figure 1). It is also the case for men and women from outside the EU and to such an extent that the proportion of the unemployed out of work for a year or more was larger for these in 2012 than for the native-born (Figure 8).

Figure 8 - Long-term unemployment of men and women by country of birth in the EU15, 2008 and 2012 (% total unemployed)

Although in many countries, the data on long-term unemployment by country of birth are not reliable because there are too few respondents to the LFS, especially for men and women from the EU10 countries or Bulgaria and Romania, the data which are reasonably reliable show a mixed picture as regards the extent of this among migrants as compared with the domestic population. For men, there are only two countries, Austria and Sweden, in which the proportion of the unemployed from the EU10 who had been out of work for a year or more was larger than for the native-born in 2012 and in both of these, the proportion was relatively small (Table 22). In Ireland, two-thirds of men from the EU10 who were out of work were long-term unemployed, but this was still less than for the Irish-born.

In Ireland too, the extent of long-term unemployment was also high among men from Bulgaria and Romania, at 70% (though the margin of error surrounding this figure is relatively wide because of the small number of observations), but this was the only country along with Belgium in which the extent was higher than for native-born men.

For men born outside the EU, the proportion of the unemployed out of work for a year or more was larger than for the native-born in 7 of the 13 countries for which there are data and in four of these (Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Sweden), the difference was over 10 percentage points. In these four countries in particular, therefore, migrants into the EU who become unemployed appear to be especially disadvantaged in finding a job.

05

101520253035404550

Same From EU10 From EU2 From non-EU

Same From EU10 From EU2 From non-EU

2008 2012

Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

Men Women


November 2012 53

Table 22 - Long-term unemployment of men and women by country of birth in the EU15 Member States, 2012 (% Total unemployed out of work for a year or more)

Men Women

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 41.9

52.9 54.4 41.6

54.9 47.1 Denmark 26.8

38.4 26.0 29.1

34.4

Ireland 68.9 66.3 70.1 64.5 47.7 51.6

49.1 Greece 59.3 53.1 29.9 46.6 63.0

47.2 60.6

Spain 40.8 37.5 35.4 49.4 45.9

39.5 47.9 France 41.1

45.2 37.2

51.1


32.1

40.1

Netherlands 32.9

40.4 28.3 59.4 47.1 51.2 Austria 26.7 32.7

23.0 23.1 17.0

26.5

Portugal 49.1

46.0 48.5

46.2 Finland 23.2

45.1 18.7

26.3

Sweden 17.1 26.1

28.4 13.5 22.4

23.3 UK 37.7 29.3

37.1 29.0 20.4

26.7

EU15 excl. DE 43.7 39.9 36.5 44.8 43.5 30.9 41.3 45.3 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which long-term unemployment is higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results; figures in italics that the data are relatively uncertain Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

In the case of women, while the proportion of the unemployed from the EU10 who were long-term unemployed in 2012 was on average much smaller across the EU 15 than that of native-born women, in 5 of the 7 countries for which there are reasonably reliable data, the proportion was larger. For women from Bulgaria and Romania, by contrast, the proportion was larger in only two of the 5 countries for which there are data and in both of these the relative number of women from these countries was small. In the three other countries, Greece, Spain and Italy, where there were many more women from the two, the proportion of long-term unemployed was smaller than for the native-born.

On the other hand, for women from outside the EU, there was a large majority of countries (10 of the 14) in which the proportion of the unemployed out of work for a year or more was larger than for the native-born, the exceptions including three of the four Southern Member States (Greece, Italy and Portugal).

While the average proportion of long-term unemployed across the EU15 does not necessarily reflect the differences between migrants and the native-born in individual Member States, this is not the case with regard to the changes in this proportion over the crisis period. In 5 of the 6 countries for which there are data, the proportion of the unemployed out of work for a year or more increased by more for men from the EU10 than for the native-born, the exception being Italy, while in three of the four where there are data (the exception being Sweden), the same was the case for women (Table 23). In the case of both men and women from Bulgaria and Romania, in all the countries, the proportion went up by more than for the native-born, while in the case of those from outside the EU, it rose by more in most of the Member States (10 out of 14 for men and 9 out of 15 for women).


November 2012 54

Table 23 - Changes in the proportion of men and women unemployed out of work for a year or more by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 (Percentage point change)

Men Women

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium -3.1 1.2 -5.2 -7.5 Denmark 11.6

26.7 14.2

15.4

Ireland 30.3 58.9

28.8 20.7 36.7

32.0 Greece 17.2 27.1 23.2 16.9 9.7

19.1 15.2

Spain 24.5 37.5 26.9 42.8 22.2

35.1 37.0 France 5.4

-1.0 4.5

1.8


11.3 7.5

-13.6

Netherlands -4.6

-7.8 -1.4

4.2 Austria 1.1

-6.2 2.4

-1.4

Portugal -0.6

9.7 1.3

2.1 Finland 3.6

20.3 3.9

13.0

Sweden 5.3 14.9

8.5 4.3 -8.0

8.0 UK 7.4 11.3

8.7 10.2 20.4

10.7

EU15 excl. DE 11.7 15.2 27.6 18.6 11.1 11.4 25.8 16.4 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which long-term unemployment rose by more than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results; figures in italics that the data are relatively uncertain Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

Are migrants unemployed more likely to be registered at employment offices? Most of the unemployed in the EU15 are registered at employment offices in order to get help in finding a job and/or to claim benefit. For men aged 25-64 born in the country where they lived, some 78% were registered on average across the EU15 in 2012, with the figure exceeding 90% in Belgium and Spain (Table 24). The proportion registered was significantly lower in aggregate for men from the EU10 (65%), though in half the countries for which there were reasonably reliable data (3 out of 6 – Spain, Italy and Austria), the proportion was larger.

For men from Bulgaria and Romania, the average proportion of the unemployed who were registered was also smaller than for the native-born and in this case, the proportion was also smaller in all of the countries for which there are data (only 4 in practice). For men from outside the EU, the proportion registered was also smaller in aggregate, if only slightly so, and there were only three countries (Portugal, Finland and Sweden), where it was larger.

The relative number of men unemployed who are both registered at employment offices and receiving unemployment benefits tends to be much smaller than of those who are simply registered, though more so for men from outside the country than the native-born. While this is the case in most individual countries, however, it is not necessarily so in aggregate because of the relative concentration of migrants in particular countries.

Overall, in the EU15, 45% of men from the EU10 who were unemployed were registered and receiving benefits in 2012, slightly more than in the case of the native-born (41%). Nevertheless, there was only one country, Italy, where the proportion was larger than for the native-born, though it was smaller than anywhere else in the EU (only 16%). For those from Bulgaria and Romania, the proportion receiving benefits was much smaller on average than for the native-born (just 26%), though this partly reflects the countries in which men from these Member States are concentrated (i.e. those like Greece and Italy where only a small number of the unemployed tend to be eligible for benefit).


November 2012 55

For men born outside the EU, the relative number receiving benefit was in aggregate only slightly smaller than for the native-born, but there were only two countries (Italy and Portugal) where the proportion was larger.

Table 24 - Proportion of men unemployed aged 25-64 registered at employment offices and receiving benefits by country of birth in the EU15, 2012

Registered Registered and receiving benefits

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 90.0 37.6 81.2 75.4 15.4 58.7 Denmark 88.1

87.8 67.6

67.8

Ireland

Greece 68.7 43.2 58.1 55.3 21.1 16.3 21.4 24.7 Spain 91.8 100.0 84.5 82.5 50.6 48.0 32.1 45.1 France 88.5

85.9 50.9

43.7


39.6

Netherlands 58.6

58.4

Austria 77.8 83.4

69.0 70.3 63.2

59.3

Portugal 79.3

87.0 39.6

44.0 Finland 86.3

90.0 78.4

69.5

Sweden 82.9 82.9

90.8 39.2 38.1

26.8 UK 55.2 52.8

36.0 55.2 52.8

36.0

EU15 excl. DE 77.7 64.8 71.8 73.9 41.2 44.9 25.5 38.1 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which temporary employment is higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results; figures in italics that the data are relatively uncertain. It should be noted that for the UK there is no concept of being registered without receiving benefits so that the figures are the same in both categories. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

The situation for women is similar, though the proportion of those unemployed who are registered and who are drawing benefits tends to be smaller than for men. In 2012, the proportion of women from the EU10 registered at employment offices was much smaller than for the native-born (52% as against 75%), though it was larger in the majority of countries for which there are data (4 of the 7) (Table 25).These countries include Spain and Italy as in the case of men, but not the UK where relatively many of women from these countries live.

For women from Bulgaria and Romania, the proportion of the unemployed registered was also smaller on average than for the native-born, though the difference was much less than for those from the EU10 despite there being in this case no countries in which the proportion was larger. For women from outside the EU, the proportion of the unemployed registered was only slightly smaller on average than for the native born, though there were only 4 of the 13 countries for which there are data where the proportion was larger (France, Luxembourg, Finland and Sweden).

The proportion of women unemployed both registered and receiving benefits is also smaller in general than for men and this is especially so for migrants. In all the countries for which there are reasonable data, the proportion of women from the EU10 who were unemployed and receiving benefits in 2012 was smaller than for the native born, the average only amounting to 23%. For women from Bulgaria and Romania, the proportion was larger only in Spain, and then only marginally so, and for women from outside the EU, the proportion was larger only in Italy and again only slightly so.


November 2012 56

Table 25 - Proportion of women unemployed aged 25-64 registered at employment offices and receiving benefits by country of birth in the EU15, 2012

Registered Registered and receiving benefits

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 92.3 23.0 79.1 81.8 21.5 52.4 Denmark 89.5 87.8

77.5 69.2 60.6

49.0

Ireland

Greece 72.2

49.1 55.2 18.2

18.0 17.6

Spain 88.9 100.0 79.7 83.8 37.8 25.1 38.0 30.6 France 85.6

87.2 52.1

31.9


70.1 28.0

25.2

Netherlands 46.8 49.9

39.5

Austria 65.7 52.1

57.1 57.2 30.9

40.3

Portugal 83.5

77.5 36.8

32.5 Finland 84.6

87.8 74.7

81.1

Sweden 79.8 83.8

88.0 36.9 20.1

21.3 UK 38.2 19.9

23.0 38.2 19.9

23.0

EU15 excl. DE 74.5 52.3 67.6 71.1 34.3 23.0 28.5 26.7 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which temporary employment is higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results; figures in italics that the data are relatively uncertain Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

In sum, therefore, men and women from the EU12 are overall less likely to be registered at an employment office if they are unemployed than those born in the country in which they live, though the difference in most cases is relatively small. They are even less likely to receive unemployment benefit and the difference tends to be bigger in this regard. Much the same is the case for men and women from outside the EU.

In consequence, it would seem that both those from the EU12 and migrants from outside the EU are less likely to receive help from in looking for a job than the native-born. This can be examined further by looking at the data on those who have recently taken up employment who were helped by the public employment services to find their job.

Are migrants more likely to use the PES to find a job than native-born? A relatively small number of men and women in the EU15 moving into a new job are helped by the PES to find it. In 2012, only just over 6% of men aged 25-64 born in the country in which they live received reported that they were helped in any way by the PES to find the job they had moved into over the past year. This was much the same proportion as for men from the EU10, though in most countries, the proportion for the latter was larger than for the native-born (Table 26). Only in two countries, therefore – Spain and the UK – did a smaller proportion of men from the EU10 report using the PES to help find their present job than that of those born in the country.

The situation was different for men from Bulgaria and Romania. In this case, only 3% across the EU15 reported being helped by the PES and only in one country (Austria) was the proportion larger than for the native-born. For men from outside the EU, on the other hand, the proportion helped by the PES was again much the same as for the native-born and there was a slight majority of countries (8 of the 14) in which the proportion was larger (the proportion reaching 20% in Sweden and 23% in Luxembourg).


November 2012 57

Table 26 - Proportion of men and women aged 25-64 moving into a job within last year who found it with help of PES by country of birth in the EU15, 2012 (%)

Men Women

Same From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU Same

From EU10

From EU2

From non-EU

Belgium 7.5 13.4 9.1 8.5 8.3 11.3 7.5 Denmark 5.1 9.9

10.1 6.8 18.5

16.3

Ireland 9.2 9.4

4.7 9.3 4.8

7.0 Greece 3.4

0.0 1.8 6.2 1.7 8.1 4.5

Spain 2.8 0.0 0.7 0.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 France 7.0

8.6 11.6

10.4


22.7 13.9

22.4

Netherlands 4.6 19.6

12.3 5.1 0.0

7.6 Austria 7.1 10.3 21.2 10.4 8.5 7.6 9.3 10.7 Portugal 7.9

10.1 13.7

6.1

Finland 12.7

11.6 18.3

12.4 Sweden 11.8 17.7 10.3 20.2 18.4 18.2 50.7 25.7 UK 8.6 4.1

7.4 6.3 12.9

5.1

EU15 excl. DE 6.3 6.4 2.9 6.5 7.5 10.9 2.6 6.4 Note: Cells highlighted show the countries in which the proportion is higher than for those born in same country. Blanks indicate sample size is too small to give reliable results. Source: Eurostat, European Labour Force Survey

In the case of women, the relative number using the PES to help find a job tends to be slightly higher than for men. This is especially the case for women from the EU10, some 11% of whom reported being helped by the PES to find their present job in 2012, as compared with just over 7% of the native-born, though this has much to do with the relatively high figure for the UK (13%) where many women from these countries live and work, Indeed, in all other countries for which there are data, the proportion was smaller than for the native-born.

For women from Bulgaria and Romania, the average proportion helped by the PES to find their present job was much smaller than for the native-born (only 2%) and though the proportion was larger than for the latter in half the countries where data are available, the numbers concerned were relatively small. In Spain and Greece, where the number of women from these countries is relatively large, very few reported being helped by the PES. For women from outside the EU, the proportion reporting being helped by the PES was only slightly smaller than for the native-born and in 5 of the 14 countries, the proportion was larger.

Concluding remarks Over the past decade or so, there have been large-scale movements of people from the countries which entered the EU in 2004 and 2007 into a number of the EU15 Member States. Although the crisis has slowed down this movement and in a few cases, such as Ireland, has led to it being reversed, it remains significant overall. It has added to the continuing inward migration from outside the EU of people from neighbouring countries in the south and east as well as from former colonies. It has given rise to an increasing need to ensure that the people concerned are integrated both into society and, more specifically, into the labour market since the vast majority of them move to EU15 countries to work. A large number of them, especially among those moving from the EU12 countries are relatively young, below the age of 35, and the majority are women.


November 2012 58

The above analysis suggests that in many countries migrants tend to be disadvantaged relative to the domestically-born population in the labour market and have been affected more by the tightening labour market conditions over the crisis period. This is less so for those from the EU10 countries, though it is still the case that their employment rates, on an age-adjusted basis, are on average lower than those of the native-born and, in the case of men at least, have declined by more in the majority of EU15 countries. This is particularly so for men from Bulgaria and Romania, who have experienced a much larger reduction in employment rates than the native-born since the onset of the crisis and whose unemployment rates in most countries are much higher. Women from outside the EU also have much higher rates of unemployment than native-born and even lower employment rates, which on average across the EU15 were 12 percentage points less than for the latter, reflecting in part their lower level of labour market participation.

Both men and women from the EU12 countries as well as migrants from outside the EU who are in employment are more likely to be in temporary jobs than those born in the country concerned, This is especially so for those from Bulgaria and Romania, who, in the case of men are three times more likely to have a temporary contract of employment than the native-born, and, in the case of women, three times more likely. It is also the case that a relatively large proportion of them are employed in part-time jobs across the EU15, though, with respect to men, less so than migrants from outside the EU, who are twice as likely to work part-time than native-born men.

Perhaps the most striking difference between those born in the country in which they work and those from outside is the types of job that they do given their levels of qualification. This is especially so for both men and women who have moved from the EU12 countries to work in the EU15. In most countries, those with university degrees or the equivalent are much less likely to be employed in managerial or professional jobs which for the most part tend to require such a level of education and are much more likely to be employed in lower level jobs in which this level of education is not required. This is particularly the case for men and women university graduates from Bulgaria and Romania, a large number of whom work in manual jobs or relatively basic service jobs, and it is especially so in Greece, Spain and Italy where many from these two countries now work. In Greece and Italy, in particular, therefore, while the employment rates of Bulgarians and Romanians are higher than those of the domestically-born population, most of them work in jobs for which they seem substantially over-qualified.

It is also the case that men and women from the EU12 countries as well as migrants from outside, especially men and particularly again those from Bulgaria and Romania, are more likely to have been made redundant over the crisis period than those born in the country. Equally, although fewer of those from the EU12 countries who become unemployed remain out of work for a year or more, the proportion has risen significantly over the crisis period and by more than for the native-born. This is especially the case once more for those from Bulgaria and Romania among whom long-term unemployment has increased considerably since 2008. It has also risen markedly among migrants from outside the EU, to such an extent that they are now more likely to be long-term unemployed if they are out of work than those born in the country.

Those from the EU12 and from outside the EU who are unemployed are equally less likely than the native-born to be registered at an employment office and, therefore, to come into contact with the public employment services to receive help in finding a job. They are even more unlikely to receive unemployment benefits, especially women. Nevertheless, in 2012, a similar proportion of men from the EU10 and from outside the EU who had moved into a job within the preceding year had received help from the PES in obtaining the job as for native-born men. Moreover, a significantly larger proportion of women from the EU10 than of native-born reported receiving such help. By contrast, very few men and women from Bulgaria and Romania across the EU15 - only 2-3% of those in their current job for less than a year – reported being helped by the PES in this way.


November 2012 59

Section III: Connecting people to work - jobseekers, vacancies, and the role of PES

The unprecedented high levels of unemployment in the EU, particularly amongst young people, and persistent mismatches of supply and demand are focusing the attention of policy makers on efforts to improve labour market efficiency through increased transparency of the market and better matching of jobseekers and vacancies. This section examines in detail who is seeking work around the European Union, the methods used to find work, the numbers of vacancies available and the extent to which the PES is involved in helping different groups of jobseekers to find work. It pays particular attention to the situation of young people, especially those not in employment, education or training (NEET), and the extent to which this group is currently outside the reach of PES, which is an issue of concern for effective implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes.


November 2012 60

Introduction The Europe 2020 strategy sets the European Union the target of having 75% of 20-64 year olds in employment by 202014. This was always an ambitious target and the recent financial and economic crisis, from which Europe has yet to recover in any sustained manner, and the consequent impact on labour markets have only served to increase the challenges ahead. Raising employment rates will require substantial job creation, not only to accommodate people who are currently unemployed, but also to provide opportunities for people who are currently inactive, particularly women. Maintaining high employment rates will also be dependent on efficient labour markets in which there is effective matching of supply and demand.

Public employment services (PES) have a key role to play in this respect. Policy at European level has given PES a central role in efforts to achieve efficient functioning of labour markets, acting not only as key service providers but also as conductors, working with other actors to ensure co-ordinated, effective, efficient and inclusive service delivery. In relation to matching of supply and demand, the PES has a particularly critical role covering activities such as: ensuring transparency of the market – in other words making sure that vacancies are visible to the widest possible audience of jobseekers and, at the same time, enabling employers to access the maximum choice of suitable candidates; providing effective matching services; undertaking regular analysis to identify both current and anticipated mismatches of supply and demand; facilitating labour mobility; cooperation with the education and training system to ensure that the training on offer can satisfy the current and future needs of employers.

In order to deliver effective services it is necessary to understand the market, both on the supply side and the demand side. This chapter aims to investigate the former and considers who is looking for work, how they go about this and, in particular, the extent to which they use the PES. The analysis pays particular attention to the situation of young people, who are of particular concern due to the extreme levels of unemployment confronting them at the present time.

In practice, the unemployment rate for young people (those aged 15-24) has always been higher than for other age-groups but the crisis has exacerbated the situation to the extent that now not far short of one in four (22.9%) of the young people in Europe who want to work are unemployed (Figure 9). Tackling the high levels unemployment generally is a priority at European level but there is particular focus on young people because of the extreme situation and the potential long-term damage this could do to society and the economic wellbeing of the EU. The European Commission is currently working with Member States to push through the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes15 that aim to ensure that all young people get a concrete offer of work or training within four months of leaving school or becoming unemployed.

Public employment services will have a key role to play in the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes. Operationally, subject to the relevant resources and procedures being put in place, PES should have no difficulty to deliver and coordinate relevant services for the young people that are registered with them. However, one of the big unanswered questions about the implementation of youth guarantee schemes is how to reach those that don’t actively seek support. To this end the analysis also looks at the proportion of young people in different situations who are registered with the PES.

14 See http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/ 15 See Factsheet: EU measures to tackle youth unemployment


http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/



November 2012 61

Figure 9 - Unemployment rate by age-group, EU-28, 2004-2012 (%)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey

Basis for the analysis Analysis in this chapter is based on data from the EU Labour Force Survey (LFS) for the 28 Member States provided by Eurostat16 at the end of July 2013. The figures shown are based on aggregation of micro-data and are the responsibility of the authors alone.

What is a jobseeker?

For the purposes of analysis in this chapter, jobseekers are defined to be all people who are actively seeking work. These can be identified from the LFS data in three main groups according to labour market status:

• Unemployed jobseekers: The ILO definition of unemployment used by the LFS requires that people are out of work, actively seeking work and available to start work within two weeks. However, this includes people currently in this situation who have already found a job that will start within the next three months. Since these people are unlikely to still be actively seeking work they are excluded from the jobseeker population considered here. This implies that the number of unemployed jobseekers in each country is slightly less than the total number of unemployed – those who have already found a job account for 4.0% of the unemployed across the EU and a maximum of 10% in France.

• Employed jobseekers: People who already have a job but are seeking another one, either as an alternative to their current job or in addition to it (i.e. to obtain extra hours).

• Inactive jobseekers: People who are out of work and actively seeking work but who are not immediately available for work (otherwise they would be counted as unemployed). Such people are presumably planning to work once their circumstances change - e.g. they manage to find alternative carers for children or other dependents, recover from illness, or reach the end of a training course, etc.

Characteristics of jobseekers In 2012 just over one in ten people aged 15 to 64 in the EU was seeking work (10.7%), amounting to a little over 35.7 million people (Figure 10). The vast majority of these

16 For more information see http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/lfs

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/lfs


November 2012 62

were unemployed, representing just over two thirds of the total (68%), whilst a quarter was employed (26.6%) and the remaining 5.3% were inactive.

The proportion of the population that was seeking work ranged from just over one in twenty in Austria (5.2%) to more than one in five in Spain (22.2%). Not surprisingly, the level of jobseeking in the population tends to be driven by the level of unemployment in the country concerned. However, there are a number of countries in which jobseeking is more common than might be expected because of relatively high levels of job-seeking amongst people who are already working. This is the case, for instance, in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Finland, and to a lesser extent in Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Indeed, in the first group of countries mentioned, the proportion of people in employment seeking another job is higher (8%, 7.6% and 8.5% respectively) than in all other countries except Croatia (8.6%).

Figure 10 - Jobseekers by labour market status (%population aged 15-64) and the unemployment rate (% labour force), 2012

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations

Differences between countries in terms of the composition of the jobseeker population therefore relate to the level of unemployment and the propensity for employed jobseekers to seek work. There is a suggestion that higher levels of jobseeking amongst employed workers are linked to higher levels labour turnover, though this is not conclusive because the available figures relate to different periods (Figure 11). The United Kingdom, Finland, Spain and Denmark all have relatively high levels of job turnover and demonstrate a high propensity for job search among people who are already employed, whilst Belgium, Italy, the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary have relatively low levels of job turnover and a similarly low propensity for job search among employed persons. Germany, France, Poland and Estonia lie between these two groups. Exceptions to this correlation would appear to be Sweden, where there is a high propensity for employed persons to seek work despite relatively low labour turnover, and to a lesser extent Portugal and Greece where again the level of jobseeking amongst employed persons is higher than would be expected from the turnover level.


November 2012 63

Figure 11 – Jobseeking amongst employed persons (2012) in relation to labour turnover (% of employment in previous year, average 2002-2007)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations and Employment in Europe 2009 Notes: Data on labour turnover are based on averages for the period 2002–07, except for France (2002) and Sweden (2002–04), and is expressed as a percentage of employment in the previous year (see Employment in Europe 2009 for the methodology).

Whilst inactive persons contribute relatively little to the overall population of jobseekers it is interesting to note that the likelihood of an inactive person actively seeking work can be linked to the level of activity in the population as a whole (Figure 12). In all countries in which the activity rate was below 65% in 2012 (Croatia, Malta, Italy, Hungary and Romania) the proportion of inactive persons seeking work was below 1%. Whilst with the exception of France, all countries with an inactive jobseeking rate above 2.5% had an activity rate of 75% or more.

Figure 12 – Jobseeking amongst inactive persons in relation to the activity rate, 2012


Jobseekers by age

To a large extent the composition of the jobseeker population by age (Figure 13) is driven by the underlying structure of the population. However, it is also affected by the level of activity in each age-group and the propensity to seek work. In 2012, the majority


November 2012 64

of jobseekers (61.2%) were of prime working age (25-49), whilst youth aged 15 to 24, accounted for just over two in ten (21.1%) and older workers aged 50 to 64, accounted for just under just under two in ten (17.7%). In the population as a whole these age groups account respectively for 53.0%, 29.7% and 17.3%.

Figure 13 – Distribution of jobseekers by age, 2012 (% total jobseekers)


This implies that prime age workers and, to a lesser extent, youth are relatively over represented among jobseekers whilst the older age group is underrepresented. This is an intuitive result as older workers are more likely to be in an established career position and thinking of retirement rather than facing the challenge of starting a new job. Indeed, the data show clearly that the proportion of the population actively seeking work at any point in time declines with age - 13.1% for those aged 15 to 24, 12.4% for those aged 25 to 49 and 6.4% for those aged 50 to 64 (Table 27). Older people are least likely to be seeking work in all countries except Lithuania where jobseeking is slightly lower amongst young people. In Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovenia the level of jobseeking amongst older workers is less than half the overall rate in the population.

Although EU level figures indicate that young people are most likely to be seeking work this is not the case in all countries. The jobseeking rate of young people is at least 50% above the overall rate in the country in Malta, Finland, Sweden and the UK, but is marginally below average in six countries (Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovenia) and some way below in Lithuania.

The figures above are based on the whole youth population covering those aged 15-24. However, in most countries, a majority of young people stay in education beyond the minimum leaving age and this clearly affects jobseeking rates. This can be seen clearly by splitting the population of young people into those aged 15-17 and those aged 18-24 (Table 28). In the EU as a whole just 3.9% of those aged 15-17 are seeking work compared to 16.7% of those aged 18-24 and a similar difference applies in the majority of countries. The exceptions are Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the UK, where jobseeking rates amongst 15-17 year olds are all above 10% - more than double the rates in most other countries. The difference in jobseeking activity between the 15-17 age group and the 18-24 age group is most pronounced in Spain where the older youngsters are nearly ten times more likely to be seeking work (31.9% vs 3.4%) but there are also differences of more than 20 percentage points in Greece (25.5% vs 1.1%), Portugal (22.4% vs. 2.1%) and Croatia (21.8% vs. 1.1%).


November 2012 65

Table 27 – Proportion of the population seeking work by labour market status and age, 2012

Total Labour market status Age Employed Unemp. Inactive 15-24 25-49 50-64

EU-28 10.7 4.5 96.0 2.0 13.1 12.4 6.4 BE 7.9 3.9 97.5 1.8 8.9 10.2 3.5 BG 9.0 0.9 97.2 1.1 8.9 10.4 6.9 CZ 6.4 1.9 97.2 0.8 7.6 7.1 4.5 DK 11.0 6.3 95.9 2.6 14.9 12.2 6.2 DE 7.2 3.0 97.4 3.9 6.8 7.9 6.4 EE 11.1 4.6 99.8 1.2 11.7 12.7 7.9 IE 12.1 2.7 97.2 1.3 13.7 13.4 7.8 EL 18.9 3.9 99.4 1.2 17.7 24.1 9.8 ES 22.2 7.3 94.8 2.1 23.8 25.9 13.8 FR 10.5 4.8 90.0 3.7 12.2 12.7 5.9 HR 14.5 8.6 99.4 0.9 16.0 20.2 7.4 IT 8.4 2.7 96.5 0.4 11.2 10.1 3.7 CY 10.9 3.6 93.1 1.2 13.1 12.0 7.1 LV 13.5 3.2 97.7 1.4 13.0 14.5 11.9 LT 11.3 2.1 98.9 1.3 8.5 13.3 9.9 LU 8.0 6.5 95.2 1.2 7.7 10.5 3.0 HU 7.7 1.1 98.5 0.4 7.7 9.4 5.0 MT 5.9 3.0 96.7 0.5 10.5 5.9 3.0 NL 8.2 4.7 96.6 3.0 10.7 9.0 5.4 AT 5.2 1.8 95.2 2.7 7.7 5.7 2.6 PL 8.4 2.7 97.0 0.8 10.3 10.0 4.8 PT 16.9 7.2 99.3 1.6 18.1 19.8 10.8 RO 5.4 1.2 99.3 0.1 7.9 6.1 2.4 SI 8.8 3.7 97.5 0.8 8.7 11.4 4.3 SK 11.4 2.5 99.1 1.1 11.5 13.1 8.2 FI 12.3 8.0 92.8 5.4 19.5 13.6 6.4 SE 12.6 7.6 91.1 5.3 19.9 13.0 6.9 UK 12.6 8.5 98.0 2.7 21.2 12.5 6.7



November 2012 66

Table 28 - Proportion of youth seeking work by labour market status and age, 2012

Total Labour market status Age Employed Unemp. Inactive 15-17 18-24

EU-28 13.1 8.5 95.6 1.7 3.9 16.7 BE 8.9 7.7 97.0 1.3 0.9 12.0 BG 8.9 1.4 95.7 0.5 0.9 11.2 CZ 7.6 5.3 97.6 0.5 1.0 9.8 DK 14.9 9.5 94.2 3.2 12.3 16.1 DE 6.8 3.5 95.2 2.5 2.6 8.4 EE 11.7 8.1 100.0 0.6 2.0 14.6 IE 13.7 4.5 96.9 0.8 2.2 18.9 EL 17.7 8.5 99.6 0.8 1.1 25.5 ES 23.8 16.6 95.6 1.7 3.4 31.9 FR 12.2 9.4 88.9 2.1 2.1 16.4 HR 16.0 17.3 100.0 0.5 1.1 21.8 IT 11.2 5.8 97.4 0.3 1.5 15.0 CY 13.1 8.4 95.9 0.6 0.6 19.1 LV 13.0 4.3 98.3 0.9 3.1 16.1 LT 8.5 3.3 97.3 0.4 0.2 11.7 LU 7.7 12.0 93.5 1.1 2.0 10.3 HU 7.7 2.7 98.2 0.1 0.1 10.6 MT 10.5 7.3 94.8 1.0 6.0 12.2 NL 10.7 5.5 94.8 3.0 10.1 10.9 AT 7.7 2.9 92.6 3.1 5.4 8.7 PL 10.3 5.7 96.3 0.4 0.2 13.9 PT 18.1 14.2 99.1 1.0 2.1 24.4 RO 7.9 3.8 99.3 0.0 1.1 10.2 SI 8.7 5.2 98.0 0.5 0.3 11.4 SK 11.5 5.1 99.0 0.4 0.7 15.3 FI 19.5 14.1 91.4 9.8 14.5 21.9 SE 19.9 14.5 85.9 7.1 11.2 23.3 UK 21.2 15.9 97.7 3.8 10.6 25.4


Characteristics of young jobseekers Overall, young people in the EU are slightly more likely to be seeking work (13.1% in 2012) than those of prime working-age (12.4%), though this pattern holds in only half of Member States (Table 27). However, there are some differences when broken down by different personal characteristics (Figure 14). Young people in work are considerably more likely than their older counterparts to be seeking another job (8.5% vs. 4.8%). This is to be expected since they are at the outset of their career, trying to find what suits them best, and often in a temporary position because they are unable to find a permanent post without prior experience. In contrast, the level of jobseeking amongst young inactives (1.7%) is less than half that amongst the prime-age group (3.8%), largely because so many are still in education/training and not ready to work.

There is also a marked difference between the two age-groups in relation to level of education. In the prime-age group the jobseeking rate decreases with level of education – those with lower levels of education are much more likely to be seeking work (18.1%) than those with high levels of education (10.1%). This is linked to a range of factors including the types of jobs that people with different levels of education tend to do, the stability of these jobs, income levels (in high income families there is less pressure for both parents to work when raising children), etc. For young people, however, the reverse is true – the likelihood of seeking work increases with the level of educational attainment. This is not necessarily a real difference between the age-groups, rather it is


November 2012 67

likely to reflect the fact that more of those with lower levels of education at the point of observation are still in school and aiming to achieve higher levels and are therefore not seeking work.

Figure 14 – Proportion of youth and prime-age people seeking work by labour market status, education level and gender, EU-28, 2012 (%)


Young jobseekers in employment, education or training, or NEET

Young jobseekers differ significantly from their older counterparts in the sense that their search for work is much more likely to constitute a first transition from education into employment. Early career experiences can have an important impact on lifelong career outcomes so for young people it is particularly important that this transition is made successfully and that they are not left in a situation where they are not in employment, education or training (NEET), either because their job seeking has been unsuccessful or because they have not yet engaged in job search. In order to better understand the situation of young people it is useful, therefore, to break the population down into three categories that roughly translate into the situations before, during and after making the transition from education to employment: (1) in education and training, (2) in work and (3) not in employment, education or training (NEET). See definitions in Box 3.


November 2012 68

Box 3 – Definition and identification of the situation of youth

The LFS data are used to categorise young people as (1) in education and training, (2) in work or (3) not in employment, education or training (NEET) using the following definitions:

• Education/training: Those recorded as unemployed or inactive who report receiving education or training during the four weeks preceding the survey. However, someone can be in education without actually receiving education in a four-week period (e.g. over the summer vacation), so the calculation is refined by adding in those who report their status as being a pupil or student plus any who report not seeking work because of education or training (but in this case, only those reporting their status as being ‘other inactive’).

• NEET: Those recorded as unemployed or inactive who report not receiving any education or training during the four weeks preceding the survey, excluding those reporting their status as being a pupil or student and those reporting not seeking work because of education or training (but in this case, only for those reporting their status as being ‘other inactive’).

• Work: Those recorded as employed, excluding those who report their status as being a pupil or student or report not seeking work because of education or training (but in this case, only those reporting their status as being ‘other inactive’).

The diagram below illustrates how these definitions are applied using the relevant LFS variables.

ILO status Received education or training during

the previous 4 weeks

Self-reported main status is student/pupil

Self-reported status is other inactive and is not seeking work

because of education or training

Situation

Employed Yes Education/training

No Work

Unemployed or inactive

Yes Education/training No Yes

No No Yes No No No NEET

A small minority of youth cannot be allocated to any of the three groups due to non-response to questions concerning either their self-reported status or reasons for not seeking work (where applicable). However, this group accounts for less than 0.1% of jobseekers at EU level and no more than 1.6% in any Member State.

Exceptionally, in the case of Germany and the UK, where there are no data on self-reported status, only those reporting the reason for not seeking work being education or training are included in the group in education/training and excluded from the NEET group. This implies that there individuals who would have reported their status as being a pupil or student could be included under NEETs rather than Education/Training. As a result, the figures for Germany and the UK are not fully comparable with those for other countries: NEETs may be slightly overstated and Education/training understated.

In 2012, 54.7% of young jobseekers in Europe were NEET, 25.1% were in education and training and the remaining 20.1% were in work. However, there was considerable variation between countries (Figure 15). NEETs tended to be the most important group, accounting for as much as 86.9% of jobseekers in Slovakia and Hungary but as little as 15.9% in the Netherlands. In fact in all but four Member States NEETs are the largest group and appear to be the main driver of jobseeking activity among youth. However, there are four clear exceptions. In Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland it is instead those in education who constitute the biggest group among young jobseekers and drive the levels of activity observed in these countries. Only two of these – Netherlands and Denmark – have youth unemployment rates that are significantly below the EU average suggesting that the level of unemployment is not the only factor at play.


November 2012 69

Figure 15 – Young jobseekers by situation, 2012 (% population aged 15-24)


The composition of the youth jobseeker population is quite different from that of the youth population as a whole, which comprises 12.4% NEET, 29.9% in work and 57.4% in education and training - a pattern which holds in all but six of the Member States (Germany, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Austria and the UK). This difference derives from differences in the propensity to seek work between groups. As would be expected, the proportion seeking work is highest amongst those who are NEET (57.7%), though it should perhaps be of some concern that this figure is not higher. The level of jobseeking is much lower among those either in work (8.8%) or in education and training (5.7%) in all Member States (Table 29).

In the four cases where youth in education appear to be the main driver of job seeking activity – namely Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden – both the proportion of youth who are NEET and their propensity to seek work are relatively low compared to the EU averages (<8% and <54% respectively) whilst the proportion of youth in education and their propensity to seek work are relatively high (>62% and >9% respectively). As a result, in these countries there are relatively fewer NEET jobseekers and relatively more youth still in education seeking employment to take up either during their studies or after they have ended.


November 2012 70

Table 29 – Proportion of youth (15-24) seeking work by situation (%), EU-28, 2012

Total NEET Work Education

EU-28 13.1 57.7 8.8 5.7 BE 8.9 59.8 8.2 2.2 BG 8.9 35.8 1.4 1.5 CZ 7.6 81.9 5.6 1.5 DK 14.9 41.4 9.7 14.5 DE 6.8 51.6 3.5 2.9 EE 11.7 51.9 7.9 5.0 IE 13.7 63.8 5.6 4.5 EL 17.7 72.3 8.5 4.0 ES 23.8 77.2 16.7 11.7 FR 12.2 68.6 9.9 3.6 HR 16.0 74.1 18.1 1.1 IT 11.2 45.4 6.0 2.1 CY 13.1 59.6 8.8 4.0 LV 13.0 62.0 4.3 6.3 LT 8.5 56.4 3.3 2.1 LU 7.7 69.9 12.2 2.7 HU 7.7 47.2 2.6 0.8 MT 10.5 54.8 7.6 3.4 NL 10.7 38.8 8.5 9.7 AT 7.7 52.3 2.7 6.7 PL 10.3 53.5 5.8 4.1 PT 18.1 73.2 14.4 7.7 RO 7.9 38.9 3.9 0.8 SI 8.7 61.0 5.7 3.9 SK 11.5 72.7 5.1 0.8 FI 19.5 44.7 14.1 18.8 SE 19.9 53.8 15.7 17.6 UK 21.2 61.1 15.9 13.4


Changes in young jobseekers over time

Between 2008 and 2012 the youth population fell by 5.1% from 60.6 million to 57.5 million but the number of young jobseekers rose 22.7% from 6.1 million to 7.5 million. The rise derived from young jobseekers who were NEET (3.1 million to 4.1 million or +33.5%) or in education and training (1.4 to 1.9 million or +31.9%) whilst the numbers in work and seeking an alternative or additional job hardly changed (1.6 to 1.5 million or -4.1%) (Figure 16).

The majority of the increase in young jobseekers who were NEET or in education and training took place between 2008 and 2009 and levels have since remained high. Over this period the number of young people in education dropped slightly (-0.7%) so the rise in the numbers seeking work implies that many young people are remaining in education longer than they would choose to do were the job market more favourable. The rise in the number of young NEET jobseekers is caused by simultaneous rises in the total number of young NEETs (+20.7%) and their propensity to seek work (+10.6%).

Meanwhile, the stability in the number of young jobseekers already in work derives from two counteracting trends. The number of young people in employment declined 17.4% but those remaining were far more likely to be seeking work (+16.1%), no doubt reflecting concerns about the precariousness of their current position.


November 2012 71

Figure 16 - Number of young jobseekers by situation, EU-28, 2008-2012 (index 2008=100)


Young NEETs not seeking work

In 2012, 5% of young NEETs were waiting to start a job that they had already secured, 57.7% were active jobseekers, but the remaining 37.3% were neither seeking work nor had a job to go to. This last group is of particular concern. Although some might not want to work yet and have valid reasons for this (see below), those that do want to work, but are not taking active steps to find it, run the risk of being left outside the system and missing out on the support available from the PES and other institutions. Indeed, reaching this group represents a particular challenge for the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes.

In 2012, excluding those who have already found a job to start later, NEETs potentially in need of assistance accounted for 12.1% of the youth population in the EU17. This figure ranges from 4.2% in the Netherlands to 21.2% in Bulgaria (Figure 17). Moreover, this group can be further split into those seeking work (7.2% of the youth population) and those not (5.0%). In general the proportion seeking work is larger but there are exceptions, including countries such as Bulgaria, Italy, Romania and Hungary, where the overall NEET rate is high so that the non-jobseekers represent a substantial share of the total youth population.

17 Figures for the proportion of youth who are NEET differ slightly from those calculated by Eurostat (data code:

edat_lfse_20). The reason for this lies both in the revisions of the labour force survey used and methodologies adopted. Whilst both account for individuals who were in education and training during the last 4 week in the same way, the way students on holiday are accounted for is slightly different. Eurostat uses a variable which directly indicates if an individual is a student on holiday whilst in this analysis such individuals are identified using whether their self-reported status was “student” or if they are not seeking work whether their reason for not doing is so was education and training. In addition, figures derived here exclude NEETs who have already found work that is yet to start. In most cases figures do not differ significantly (less than 1 percentage point in 16 Member States and less than 2.5 percentage points in 25 Member States) but in some cases differences are quite significant. For Belgium, the Czech Republic and Ireland figures are 3.5, 2.6 and 3.8 percentage points higher in the Eurostat data.

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

NEET Work Education

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=EDAT_LFSE_20


November 2012 72

Figure 17 - Proportion of the youth population (15-24) that is NEET (and has not already found work to start later) by jobseeker status, 2012 (%)


The group of non-jobseekers can then be split further into those that say they want to work (43.9%) and those that do not (56.1%). The proportion that wants to work varies from just 9.8% in Slovakia to 67.4% in Italy (Figure 18). In relation to the total youth population, the highest levels of NEETs not seeking work but wanting to work are in Italy (6.9%), Bulgaria (5.5%), Romania (4.4%), and Hungary (2.8%).

Figure 18 - Proportion of the youth population that is NEET and not seeking work by desire to work, 2012 (%)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Note: Figures exclude NEETs who have found a job to start later.

It is worth pausing at this stage to reflect on what the above tells us about the composition of the youth population in the EU (Figure 19). The large majority are either still in education (57.4%) or in work (29.9%), leaving 12.4% that are not in employment, education or training (NEET). Within this latter group, a small proportion have already found work and therefore do not need further assistance, leaving 12.1% - or over 7 million young people – who represent the primary targets for Youth Guarantee schemes across the EU. This group can be further decomposed into NEETs who are


November 2012 73

seeking work (7.2% of the youth population or 4.1 million young people), NEETS who are not seeking work but would like to work (2.1% or 1.2 million) and a final group that is neither seeking work nor wants to work (2.7% or 1.6 million).

Figure 19 - Youth population in the EU by situation, 2012


Reasons for not seeking work amongst NEETs

There can be perfectly valid reasons for not looking for work irrespective of the desire to be in employment. For instance, 38.0% of young NEETs were not looking for work due to caring and family related tasks (i.e. taking care of dependants) and 14.4% were not doing so due to disability or illness. However, as many as 17.1% claim that they were not actively engaged in job-search because they believe that there was none available to them (Table 30, where the figures exclude the small proportion of NEETs who have already found a job to start later). Notably, the proportion not looking for work for this reason is particularly high in Bulgaria (37.2%), Italy (28.9%), Romania (27.7%) and Hungary (24.8%) – all of which are also countries with the high levels of non-job seeking NEETs that want to work.

The distribution of reasons is different for the prime-age group. Here, caring responsibilities and own illness/disability are both higher and this may explain why the proportions not seeking work because they believe none is available or for other reasons are both lower than in the youth group.

Unknown0.4%

Education57.4%

Work29.9%

Found work(non-jobseeker)

0.4%

Jobseeker7.2%

Non-jobseekerWant to work

2.1%

Non-jobseekerDo not want to work

2.7%

NEET12.4%


November 2012 74

Table 30 - Reasons for not seeking work by age (% NEET not seeking work), 2012

15-24 25-49 Disability / Illness

Caring / Family Tasks

Believe no work available

Other Disability / Illness

Caring / Family Tasks

Believe no work available

Other

EU-28 14.4 38.0 17.1 30.6 22.4 47.9 11.1 18.5 BE 18.2 32.6 4.5 44.8 35.0 41.8 3.4 19.8 BG 5.9 32.1 37.2 24.8 19.1 35.5 33.2 12.2 CZ : : : : : : : : DK 35.8 13.9 2.2 48.1 73.7 12.1 1.4 12.8 DE 14.1 46.1 4.2 35.5 21.0 54.4 1.8 22.8 EE 17.1 59.2 9.3 14.5 27.1 62.3 6.9 3.7 IE 16.1 41.2 18.8 23.9 21.1 59.1 9.8 10.1 EL 8.6 29.1 4.2 58.1 14.3 49.7 3.7 32.2 ES 19.5 35.2 19.1 26.1 27.9 49.7 10.0 12.4 FR : : : : : : : : HR 3.6 54.5 20.3 21.6 9.2 44.6 14.0 32.3 IT 7.0 21.1 28.9 43.0 9.3 39.2 21.8 29.8 CY 21.2 41.2 6.8 30.7 22.1 63.6 9.2 5.2 LV 9.9 60.4 9.1 20.5 26.9 44.6 16.2 12.3 LT 33.2 30.5 5.8 30.5 38.9 35.1 7.9 18.2 LU 10.5 16.0 2.8 70.6 16.4 70.7 0.7 12.2 HU 10.9 33.0 24.8 31.3 15.4 48.8 15.3 20.5 MT 13.0 42.6 1.3 43.0 10.3 71.8 0.8 17.1 NL 44.9 13.8 13.4 27.9 48.1 31.1 7.8 13.0 AT 25.1 37.3 1.3 36.3 26.6 53.6 0.9 18.8 PL 18.7 59.3 14.8 7.2 26.4 56.5 10.4 6.6 PT 21.0 20.1 26.5 32.3 39.8 29.8 15.9 14.5 RO 6.7 30.3 27.7 35.3 10.5 43.7 21.8 23.9 SI 29.5 39.2 7.5 23.8 36.3 37.0 6.8 19.9 SK 22.7 74.6 1.7 1.0 30.5 66.5 1.9 1.1 FI 30.3 32.3 13.4 24.0 33.8 42.6 3.8 19.7 SE 28.8 25.8 4.4 41.0 61.0 23.2 2.9 12.9 UK 20.6 59.7 1.6 18.0 33.5 58.6 0.6 7.4

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: Figures exclude NEETs who have found a job to start later. Data not available for FR and CZ, which are therefore missing from the EU-28 total. Data for Luxembourg (15-24) is unreliable.

Jobsearch methods Having considered the characteristics of the jobseeker population around Europe, particularly those aged 15 to 24, the next section focuses on how different groups of jobseekers search for work. The analysis is based on data describing the methods used by jobseekers to find work within the last four weeks only. The LFS separately identifies twelve specific methods (see list in Figure 20) as well as a final catch-all category of “other methods”.

In 2012, the most widely used method was to study advertisements in newspapers, journals (72.3%), though far fewer actually took the initiative to either respond to or to place an advert (44.3%). Two-thirds (66.4%) tried personal contacts such as friends, relatives and work contacts while almost six in ten (58.4%) applied directly to potential employers. Just under half of jobseekers (45.6%) contacted the public employment services but only one in five used a private agency (21.1%).


November 2012 75

Use of all methods was highest among unemployed jobseekers except in the cases of those related to the search for land, premises or equipment and looking for permits, licences, financial resources which were more common among both employed and inactive jobseekers. The relatively higher level of use among unemployed was most prominent in the case of contact with the public employment services (54.9% compared to an average of 45.6%), likely a reflection of the conditionality associated with unemployment benefits which typically require unemployed to contact the PES on a regular basis.

The LFS data do not specifically identify the use of the internet from other forms of media. However, guidelines for each relevant question recommend use of the internet should be considered equally with other media or contact methods18. Therefore, “Inserted or answered advertisements in newspapers or journals” includes referring to, or placing, adverts online and “Contacted the public employment office to find work” includes using the website of the PES to search for vacancies (though not for other purposes). Furthermore, jobseekers may find out about vacancies, and apply for them, through employer’s websites or use social media services to communicate with friends, relatives, trade unions…etc. to seek information about job opportunities. Use of the internet therefore pervades across many of the different methods identified in the LFS data.

Figure 20 - Methods used by jobseekers to find work in the last four weeks by labour market status, EU-28, 2012 (% jobseekers)


Jobseekers generally do not rely on one particular method when seeking work, in fact in 2012 jobseekers used an average of 3.8 different methods to seek work during the previous four weeks. Such figures may reflect the intensity and diversification of jobseeker activities but they may also reflect the usefulness, applicability and accessibility of different methods. For instance, in the case of Denmark, the method “Awaiting the results of a competition for recruitment to the public sector” is very rarely used because it does not really apply in the national context. In addition, the national questionnaires used to collect the LFS data do not always include questions addressing all the methods listed19. For example, the questionnaires for Malta and France do not

18 See the EU-LFS database user guide 2012:


19 See Labour Force Survey Quality Reports for further information: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/publications/methods



http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/publications/methods


November 2012 76

include questions on the use of three methods - “Awaiting the results of an application for a job”, “Waiting for a call from a public employment office” and “Awaiting the results of a competition for recruitment to the public sector” – therefore the data do not record any observations using these methods.

Unemployed jobseekers used the most different methods, with an average of 4.1 across the EU (Figure 21). The figure varies considerably between countries with as many as 6.5 methods used in Slovenia and fewer than 2.5 in Sweden. However, because of the different coverage and relevance of some methods in each country it is not practical to draw any specific conclusions about the intensity of job seeking activities between countries.

Considering unemployed jobseekers of different ages, the prime-age group used the most methods (average of 4.3), followed by the youth group (4.1 methods) and then the older group (3.8 methods). Youth used fewer methods than the prime age group in three quarters of Member States but differences between these are noticeably larger than elsewhere in Denmark and the Netherlands. Here, young jobseekers used between 1.3 and 1.5 fewer methods than their prime-age counterparts and the main contribution to this gap comes from use of the public employment services, which seems to be much lower amongst the youth age-group.

Figure 21 – Average number of methods used by unemployed jobseekers to find work, 2012

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Note: Data for LU (55-64) are not available. Data for MT (55-64) are unreliable.

Changes in the use of jobsearch methods over time

The twelve methods considered above can be grouped into four categories related to the extent to which the jobseekers exploit intermediaries in their job-search:

1. Contacted public employment services (PES) 2. Contacted private employment agencies (PRES) 3. Asked friends, relatives, trade unions (Personal contacts) 4. Self-initiative

The first three come directly from the list of detailed methods and involve either formal or informal intermediaries, whilst the fourth combines all direct approaches: applied to employers directly; studied, inserted or answered advertisements in newspapers or journals or online; looked for land, premises or equipment; looked for permits, licences, financial resources.


November 2012 77

Before the crisis, between 2004 and 2008, the data indicate increased use of private agencies (14.4% to 18.3%) and self-initiative (76.2% to 80%) while personal contacts were unchanged in the region of 54% despite some variation (Figure 22). Then between 2008 and 2009 the usage of all three of these methods rose, presumably in response to the worsening labour market conditions as the impact of the crisis took hold. The rise was particularly pronounced for the use of personal contacts which rose from 53.7% to 60.9%. Much of this increase can be attributed not to a change of jobsearch habits but to increased numbers of jobseekers from countries where the use of personal contacts to find work is relatively high (>65%), particularly Spain (average of 80% use).

From 2009 to 2012 use of the PRES, self-initiative and personal contacts continued to rise, reaching levels significantly higher than in 2004. Although the data do not distinguish use of the internet it is likely that this contributed to these changes as the internet facilitates access to and communication with PRES, personal contacts, job posting services, and employers looking to recruit as well as access to services that can be used to look for and obtain land, premises, equipment, permits, licences and financial resources.

Figure 22 – Use of different job search methods, EU-28, 2004-2012 (%jobseekers)


In contrast, use of the PES fell from 45.6% from 53.5% over the same period (2004-2012). There are a number of factors that may contribute to this apparent decline. In the period prior to the crisis, the proportion of jobseekers that were unemployed and most likely to contact the PES, fell from 63.0% to 57.4% and this contributed at least part of the observed decline in use of the PES. However, in the subsequent period the share of unemployed amongst jobseekers increased to 68.0% and yet the use of the PES continued to fall (except for a brief rise between 2008 and 2009). A likely explanation lies in the changing distribution of jobseekers between Member States. Between 2004 and 2012 the contribution of jobseekers from Germany, among whom the use of the PES is relatively high (75% on average between 2004 and 2012), declined from 18.4% to 10.9% whilst the contribution of jobseekers from Spain, among whom the use of the PES is relatively low (33% on average between 2004 and 2012) rose from 9.9% to 19.3%.

The increased use of PRES, personal contacts and self-initiative holds in three-quarters of Member States but there is more variation in terms of use of the PES. Decreased contact occurred in seventeen Member States, including three of the largest countries (Germany, France and the UK) but contact rose in three Mediterranean States (Greece, Spain and Italy), six Eastern European countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovenia) and two smaller central European countries (Belgium and Luxembourg). The


November 2012 78

largest increases were in Latvia and Lithuania where use of the PES increased by more than 30 percentage points between 2004 and 2012.

Apart from a few cases where there is a continuous trend in one direction (e.g. steady increase in use of the PES in Belgium, steady decline in Germany) or where there are obvious changes in response to significant rises in unemployment (e.g. Latvia and Lithuania in 2008-2009), in many countries there are fluctuations in both directions that are difficult to explain without detailed analysis on a country by country and year by year basis. This would have to take into account not only underlying factors such as the composition of the jobseeking population, but also institutional factors (e.g. merger of benefit organisation and PES) and regulatory factors (e.g. changes to benefit conditionality). Even then, it is not certain that a clear picture would arise. What is apparent, however, is that the extent to which jobseekers use the PES cannot be predicted from the composition of the jobseeking population. Although, overall, it can be said that unemployed jobseekers in the EU are more likely than employed or inactive jobseekers to contact the PES when seeking work (see Figure 20 above), on a country by country basis there are several cases in which high proportions of jobseekers contact with the PES for assistance despite relatively low proportions of unemployed in the jobseeker population and vice versa (Figure 23). In countries such as Germany, Sweden and Luxembourg, use of the PES in jobsearch is well above average despite a relatively low proportion of jobseekers being unemployed. In contrast, use of the PES is well below average in Cyprus, Spain, Italy and Bulgaria despite high proportions of unemployed in the jobseeker population. These differences are likely to be related to a combination of the PES coverage of the job market and the quality of services on offer.

Figure 23 - Use of the PES in job-search in relation to the proportion of unemployed in the jobseeker population, 2012

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Note: No data available for Ireland

EU-28

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

GR

ES

FR

HR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

ATPL

PT RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% jo

bsee

kers

usin

g th

e PE

S

% jobseekers who are unemployed

High use of PES, low unemployed

High unemployed, low use of PES


November 2012 79

Registration and contact with the public employment services (PES) The LFS question on contact with the PES to find work requires that the contact should involve one of the following20: • First registration (i.e. being registered by the PES as a jobseeker following a period of

employment or inactivity) • Finding out about possible job vacancies • Contact initiated by the PES regarding information about a possible job opportunity • Contact through the website of the PES with the objective of finding a job

Information on whether a jobseeker has had contact with the PES in order to find work is not necessarily a good indication of whether a person is registered with the PES and vice versa. On the one hand, a jobseeker may use PES services, particularly online, but not register unless there are specific incentives to do so (i.e. to get access to benefits or to more personalised services). On the other hand, a jobseeker may register but have no recent contact with the PES. For example, because they are deemed adequately equipped to undertake their job-search under their own initiative, or because they have been referred by the PES to outsourced services or active measures that do not require ongoing contact with the PES.

In 2012, 57.4% of jobseekers across the EU reported being registered with the PES while only 45.6% said that they had had recent contact the PES in order to find work. However, this overall figure is driven by big differences in large countries such as Spain – where 75.8% are registered but just 30.5% have had recent contact – and Italy, and in more than half of countries more jobseekers had contact than are registered (Figure 24).

Figure 24 – Jobseekers registered or in contact with PES in the last four weeks, 2012 (% total jobseekers)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: IE data not available and excluded from the EU-28 figure.

In Spain, nearly half (47%) of all jobseekers claiming to be registered with the PES had no recent contact (for the purposes of job-search). This is an exceptional figure, but the level still exceeds 20% in Belgium, Cyprus, France, Portugal and Italy (Figure 25). In these countries relatively few jobseekers had contact with the PES without being registered. In contrast, more than 20% of jobseekers in Sweden and Malta and more than 10% of jobseekers in Austria, Hungary, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Romania and 20 For further information refer to the explanatory notes for the labour force survey:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/documents/EU_LFS_explanatory_notes_from_2012_onwards.pdf




November 2012 80

Luxembourg had contact without being registered while very few are registered without being in contact. Even if only unemployed jobseekers are taken into account (i.e. employed and inactive jobseekers are excluded), the proportion in contact with the PES but not registered remains higher than in other countries.

Figure 25 – Jobseekers either registered or in contact with PES in the last four weeks, 2012 (% total jobseekers)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: IE data not available and excluded from the EU-28 figure.

Registration compared with PES own figures

The data on registration used in this analysis are derived from the European Labour Force Survey, which is a quarterly survey of households so that the results reflect the situation as reported by individual respondents. It is interesting, therefore, to compare the level of registration as recorded in the LFS with the PES own figures.

Table 31 shows figures on the number of people registered with the PES according to the LFS (total and those considered as jobseekers as defined in this study) compared to the annual average stock of persons registered with the PES according to administrative data collected through Eurostat’s Labour market policy (LMP) database21 for the reference year 2011 (the latest available).

A perfect match between the results of surveys based on a sample of the population and the administrative data is unlikely. Other than the fundamental issue of a relatively small sample not capturing a flawless picture of the situation (though the LFS is considered the most reliable EU-wide source of labour market information) there are a several reasons why differences in the data may arise. On the one hand, in the LFS data, some people may not even be aware that they are registered, whilst others might think they are still registered whilst they have actually been de-registered. On the other hand, in the PES registers, people are not always obliged to inform when they find work or stop looking for work (unless they are receiving benefits) and although regular maintenance of registers takes place to minimise such issues, there is always a tendency for numbers to be overstated.

Comparing the two sets of figures, it is not surprising, therefore, to see that the PES figures are often higher than the LFS figures. Differences are within +/- 10% for seven

21 See: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/labour_market/labour_market_policy. The figures

used are those for “total registered jobseekers” of which the registered unemployed are normally a subset. In CZ, IE, EL, LU, HU, SI and UK the registered unemployed (according to national definitions) account for 100% of all registered jobseekers because no other groups are formally registered. In BG, EE, LV, MT, AT, PL and SK other registered jobseekers account for less than 5% of the total.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/labour_market/labour_market_policy


November 2012 81

countries, within +/- 20% for fourteen and within +/- 40% for twenty two. Of the remaining countries, the LFS figure is just under 60% of the PES figure in Sweden but as low as 40% in Romania. However, the most obvious discrepancy is in Belgium where the LFS figure is well over double the administrative figure. Part of the reason may be that the national employment office (ONEM) supports significant numbers of employed workers (e.g. people on temporary lay-off or reduced working time) who are excluded from the numbers of registered jobseekers reported to the LMP. The total number of people supported by ONEM in 2011 was around 1.3 million of whom around 630 thousand were employed22. Based on this total figure, the LFS figure would be over 90% of the official one.

Table 31 – Registration with the PES – comparison of survey data (LFS) and PES own administrative data, 2011

Survey data (LFS) Registered with the PES

Administrative data (PES own registers)

Registered in LFS as % PES own data

Total Of which, jobseekers

Total registered jobseekers (LMP)

Total Jobseekers

BE 1 206 877 457 201 547 379 220.5% 83.5% BG 224 573 161 482 332 921 67.5% 48.5% CZ 376 169 298 935 509 163 73.9% 58.7% DK 255 780 198 861 207 745 123.1% 95.7% DE 4 412 298 3 133 680 5 207 557 84.7% 60.2% EE 49 289 45 566 53 220 92.6% 85.6% IE : : 444 905 : : EL 491 480 417 684 576 620 85.2% 72.4% ES 6 460 821 4 480 527 5 745 293 112.5% 78.0% FR 4 365 323 2 751 291 4 116 248 106.1% 66.8% HR 322 635 230 701 : : : IT 3 072 466 1 252 252 : : : CY 30 213 21 851 37 771 80.0% 57.9% LV 146 022 98 667 147 401 99.1% 66.9% LT 218 574 192 417 305 059 71.6% 63.1% LU 17 986 10 258 13 494 133.3% 76.0% HU 485 297 326 392 582 868 83.3% 56.0% MT 6 692 5 172 6 880 97.3% 75.2% NL 521 813 197 436 625 600 83.4% 31.6% AT 286 336 131 552 258 596 110.7% 50.9% PL 1 909 095 1 230 071 2 011 154 94.9% 61.2% PT 822 963 658 768 639 655 128.7% 103.0% RO 362 001 229 017 908 337 39.9% 25.2% SI 111 399 65 071 110 692 100.6% 58.8% SK 402 974 351 457 401 468 100.4% 87.5% FI 308 427 178 568 470 401 65.6% 38.0% SE 382 132 340 422 679 020 56.3% 50.1% UK 1 326 021 1 117 660 1 571 671 84.4% 71.1%

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (own calculations) and Labour Market Policy database Note: For EL data refer to 2010 (both sources).

The number of people considered as active jobseekers in the LFS (according to the definition given above) is well below the total registered with the PES in all cases except Portugal where the difference is small (+3%). In 13 countries they account for between a half and three-quarters of official registered jobseekers and less than half in a further four. Taking the total for all countries for which both sets of data are available, active 22 See the ONEM website for a breakdown of the Belgian registrant data.

http://www.onem.be/Frames/frameset.aspx?Path=D_stat/&Items=1&Language=FR

http://www.onem.be/Frames/frameset.aspx?Path=D_stat/&Items=1&Language=FR


November 2012 82

jobseekers in the LFS represent two-thirds of those registered as jobseekers with the PES, which implies that the other third of those registered are not seeking work. People that have found work to start soon may account for some of this difference but the scale of the differences means that other factors must be at play.

To fully understand the reasons for the differences between LFS and administrative data would require a detailed analysis by country far beyond the scope of the current study. It is nevertheless important to be aware of these differences and bear in mind that the LFS data on registration may not tally with the PES own figures.

Interaction between jobseekers and the PES As noted above, there are groups of jobseekers who use the PES in their jobsearch but are not registered as well as groups that are registered but use other avenues to find work. Taking either registration or contact (or both) to represent some form of interaction with the PES gives an indication of the extent to which the PES is managing to service the whole jobseeker population.

In 2012, European PES had some interaction with almost two thirds of jobseekers (64.2%)23 but this hides significant differences between Member States with figures ranging from over 85% in Slovakia to just below 37% in the Netherlands (Figure 26). As would be expected, unemployed jobseekers are more likely to have had some interaction with the PES (76.5%) than those who are either inactive (62.4%) or employed (33.0%). There are only two Member States – Estonia and Latvia – where inactive jobseekers are more likely to interact with the PES than the unemployed.

The composition of the jobseeker population by labour market status explains some of the differences observed in the overall level of interaction. For example, in the Netherlands and the UK, where overall interaction is lowest, unemployed jobseekers account for less than 50% of the jobseeker population and the lower level of PES interaction for employed and inactive jobseekers (particularly the former) brings the overall level down. Indeed, considering unemployed jobseekers only, interaction is lower in other countries (Bulgaria, Romania and Ireland). Meanwhile, in Slovakia and Lithuania where the PES appears to have the widest reach amongst the jobseeker population, more than 80% is unemployed.

Interaction between the PES and jobseekers generally increases with age. In 2012, 57.4% of young jobseekers, 64.3% of prime age jobseekers and 71.7% of older jobseekers were either registered with the PES or contacted them to find work (Figure 27). This pattern holds in the majority of Member States and in all cases where this does not hold (i.e. interaction is higher amongst young people) the differences between age groups are small. The gap between young and older jobseekers is particularly pronounced in Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands (53.2, 46.3 and 34.4 percentage points respectively). These are all countries in which significant proportions of young jobseekers are still in education and this certainly contributes to the gap observed. It is not, however, the whole explanation as significant differences are still apparent if only unemployed jobseekers are considered.

23 Note: for Ireland there is data on contact with the PES but not on registration. While earlier figures on the

proportion of jobseekers who are registered (57.4%) and those who are not registered but had contact with the PES (6.4%) exclude Ireland, the EU figure on interaction (registered or contact) includes the contact figures for Ireland.


November 2012 83

Figure 26 – Proportion of jobseekers interacting with the PES by labour market status, 2012 (%)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: Data for RO (inactive) are unavailable. Data for HR (inactive), LT (inactive), MT (inactive) and SI (inactive) are unreliable. IE figures only cover contact with the PES for jobsearch.

Figure 27 – Proportion of jobseekers interacting with the PES by age group, 2012 (%)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: Data for IE are only based on contact with PES in the last four weeks and therefore are likely to be underestimated.

PES interaction with young people PES are expected to play a central role in the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes, which aim to ensure that all young people get a good quality offer of education, training or employment within 4 months of leaving school or becoming unemployed. In practice, therefore, the key target group for these schemes is young NEETs but preventative actions are also important so contact with those still in education or already in work is also relevant. This section looks at PES interaction first with young jobseekers, who are already taking active steps to find work, and then with the more difficult to reach group of young NEETS not seeking work.


November 2012 84

Young jobseekers

Whilst 57.4% of young jobseekers in 2012 had some interaction with the PES this figure varies between young jobseekers in different situations. At EU level, interaction is highest between the PES and young NEET jobseekers (74.2%), which is to be expected given that the vast majority were unemployed (95.4%), and more or less double the level for those in education (37.3%) or in work (36.6%). This trend holds, albeit to different extents, in all Member States despite much variation in the levels of interaction between countries (Figure 28).

More than 90% of young NEET jobseekers had some interaction with the PES in Slovakia, Belgium, Croatia and the Czech Republic compared to less than half in Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Bulgaria (Table 32). In general the overall level of interaction tends to be driven by interaction with NEETs as they constitute the majority of young jobseekers, but in countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland where more young jobseekers are still in education the low overall levels are clearly driven by the much lower level of interaction with this group as interaction with NEETs is not so far below the average.

In the majority of countries less than half of young people in education had any interaction with the PES. Slovakia stands out as the only country in which more than 70% of young jobseekers in education interacted with the PES in some way. This is potentially a result of extensive efforts made to inform young people about the labour market. By law the Slovakian PES provides both elementary and high school students with information and advisory services designed to help them select suitable professions and to inform them about how to register as a jobseeker, the rights and obligations of jobseekers and about active labour market measures. On the other hand, in Finland, the Netherlands and Denmark the PES interacts with less than one in five of young jobseekers still in education.

Figure 28 - Interaction between PES and young jobseekers by situation, 2012 (%)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: Data for IE are only based on contact with PES in the last four weeks and therefore are likely to be underestimated. Data for BG (Education and Work) and LT (Work) are unavailable. Data for HR (Education), LT (Education) and SI (Work) are unreliable.


November 2012 85

Table 32 - PES interaction with young jobseekers by situation, EU-28, 2012

NEET Education Work >90% BE, SK, CZ, HR 80-90% FI, LT, DE, SE, FR, ES, AT,

HU

70-80% PL, LU, SI, UK, PT SK 60-70% EL, DK SE, SK, BE 50-60% MT, IT, IE, NL, CY PL, ES, BE, HR, SE LU, FR 40-50% RO, EE LT, MT, HU, CZ, IT, LU,

PT, DE, FR, CY, AT DE, EL, IT, PT, HU, ES, HR

30-40% LV EL, EE, RO AT, RO, PL 20-30% BG SI, IE, UK, LV SI, CY, CZ, MT, FI, IE, UK 10-20% FI LV, NL, DK, EE <10% DK, NL No data BG BG, LT Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: as for Figure 28 above

Young NEETs not seeking work

A crucial question on the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes is how to reach those young people who are not in education, training or work and who have not actively sought assistance by contacting the PES. As shown above, many of this group would like to work but are confronted with barriers (including caring responsibilities or own disability) or are put off seeking work because they see no chance of success. This is, therefore, a group that is potentially most at need of assistance, motivation and guidance to overcome the various difficulties that are preventing them taking active steps to find work.

Whilst the extent of PES interaction with jobseekers assessed above takes into account both contact for job-search and registration, interaction for non-jobseekers can only be based on registration since (by definition) people who are not seeking work are not covered by questions asking about the methods used to find work (in the past 4 weeks).

In 2012, 16.9% of the 2.8 million young NEETs not seeking work (again excluding those who had already found a job to start later) were registered with the PES. This can be further broken down to show that 25.8% of those that actually want to work are registered and only 10% of those that do not. It still means that three-quarters of NEETs who are not seeking work but would like to work (around 900 thousand young people) are not registered with the PES and are therefore outside their reach for providing assistance.

The registration rate of young NEETs not seeking work varies from just 0.5% in Romania to 43.7% in Belgium (Figure 29). In the case of the latter, 67.1% of those wanting to work and 29.8% of those not wanting to work were registered. Both figures were higher than any other country.

Belgium therefore has the highest level of interaction with young NEETs, whether or not they are jobseekers (see Figure 28 above) or not. This has been attributed to the Belgian social security system, which provides incentives for young school-leavers to automatically register with the appropriate regional PES (VDAB, Actiris, Le Forem or ADG). School leavers are entitled to unemployment benefits even without prior work experience. This entitlement only starts after one year but they may claim means tested social benefits during this first year and access is conditional on registering as a jobseeker24. Furthermore, the different regional PES also take steps to inform school-leavers about the transition between the sphere of education and that of work prior to 24 “Youth Unemployment in Belgium: Diagnosis and Key Remedies”, Bart Cockx, 2013.

http://ftp.iza.org/pp66.pdf

http://ftp.iza.org/pp66.pdf


November 2012 86

them finishing their studies. For instance, Le Forem, each year in May-June (end of school year) and in August-September, organises a media campaign targeting young school leavers entering the labour market, creates information packs and posters, and implements individual and collective information sessions to guide those moving into the labour market. The overall result is that the proportion of young NEETs outside the PES registers is small when compared to most other countries.

Figure 29 – Proportion of young NEETs not seeking work but registered with the PES by desire to work, 2012 (%)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: Figures exclude NEETs who have found a job to start later. Data for IE are not available and are therefore missing from the EU-28 figure. Data for LU (both breakdowns) and LT (wanting to work) are not available. Data for CZ (wanting to work), HR (not wanting to work), LU (total), SI (wanting to work) and SK (wanting to work) are unreliable.

The challenge ahead

If European PES are to play a central role in the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes they will, together with other actors, need to find ways of contacting all youth who are NEET (and have not already found work) in order to engage them in the service process and make a suitable offer.

At EU level 5.8% of the youth population, around 3.3 million people, is NEET and has no interaction with the PES. Just over two thirds of these are not seeking work. However, as seen previously this does not necessarily mean they do not want to work and the reasons for not seeking work may be overcome given the right motivation and assistance.

In some countries the challenge is more pronounced that in others. Three countries in particular stand out. More than 10% of the youth population in Bulgaria, Romania and Italy were NEET and had no interaction with the PES. In the case of Bulgaria the figure exceeds 18%. In all three cases the levels observed are not only driven by high levels of young NEET jobseekers but also by high levels of young NEETs not seeking work. These three countries, as well as Hungary which also had a high proportion of young NEETs not seeking work with no interaction with the PES, had the highest levels in of young NEETs not seeking work but wanting to work and of young NEETs not seeking work because of the belief that no work was available to them.


November 2012 87

Figure 30 - Proportion of the youth population (15-24) that is NEET and has no interaction with the PES, 2012 (%)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: Figures exclude NEETs who have found a job to start later. Data for IE are not available and are therefore missing from the EU-28 figure.

It is worth, at this point, summarising the situation of young NEETs in relation to contacts with the PES. In total NEETs account for 12.4% of the youth population. Nearly half has contact with the PES but nearly as many do not (Figure 31). Given the central role anticipated for PES in the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes, which require that all young NEETs get assistance, this represents a significant deficit to be overcome. Of the 3.3 million that were outside the reach of the PES in 2012, 1.4 million were not seeking work and did not want to work - roughly a fifth of all young NEETs. A further 900 thousand were not seeking work but would like to work and the remaining million or so were already seeking work but had no interaction with the PES.

Figure 31 – Young NEETs and contact with the PES, EU-28, 2012

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: Figures exclude Ireland.

Found work3.0%

Interaction with PES49.6%

Jobseeker14.7%

Non-jobseekerWants to work

12.8%

Non-jobseekerDoes not want to work

19.8%

No interaction with PES47.4%


November 2012 88

Vacancies and matching For the most part, jobseekers find work by responding to demand from employers, either for additional labour or to fill a post that has, or will shortly, become vacant. Although recruitment can, occasionally, be an ad hoc decision when an employer comes across someone they believe would add value to their business, it is usually planned. The employer recognises a shortfall in the labour force and takes steps to find one or more persons to fill that need. Once this process is underway then it can be said that a vacancy exists, which then represents an opportunity for a jobseeker. An efficient labour market then depends on effective matching of jobseekers to vacancies (i.e. ensuring that the right people find the right jobs). Effective matching depends, in turn, on full transparency in the market – ensuring that jobseekers can get information about all relevant vacancies and that employers can find suitable jobseekers, not just from the local market but from as far afield as necessary to find people with the right skills and experience.

As a complement to the analysis of jobseekers, this section considers the available data on vacancies and changes over the crisis period and then looks at some of the steps public employment services are taking to improve their capacity to promote transparency in the market and deliver effective matching services.

What is a vacancy?

Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, publishes annual and quarterly data on job vacancies that are collected in the Member States (either by the national statistical service or the Ministry of Labour) according to Regulation (EC) 453/200825. The regulation defines a job vacancy to be “a paid post that is newly created, unoccupied, or about to become vacant: (a) for which the employer is taking active steps and is prepared to take further steps to find a suitable candidate from outside the enterprise concerned; and (b) which the employer intends to fill either immediately or within a specified period of time.”

Changes in the number of vacancies over the crisis period

The published statistics include data on the stock of vacancies (i.e. the number of vacancies at the time of the observation) in all EU countries26. However, it should be recognised that the data are not fully comparable between countries due to differences in sampling units (enterprises or local unit) or sources used (administrative sources or surveys)27. Further, the coverage of different sectors of the economy and of enterprises of different sizes varies between countries. Finally, the time-series data is limited for some countries as the provision of quarterly data did not become compulsory until January 201025.

Despite these provisos, the data provide a useful indication of developments in the number of vacancies over time. Table 33 presents the annual change in the stock of vacancies from mid-2008 to mid-2013 for all Member States where the data is available. In order to maximise the available dataset, the figures exclude the agricultural sector (according to NACE rev. 2), information for which is not collected in many countries. Agriculture generally contributes relatively few vacancies so its exclusion is unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall figures. Exceptionally, in the case of Denmark the data also excludes public administration, defence, compulsory social security, education, human health and social work activities (NACE sectors O-Q).

25 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:145:0234:0237:EN:PDF 26 See job vacancy statistics metadata for more information

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/en/jvs_esms.htm 27 European Vacancy monitor – November 2013


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:145:0234:0237:EN:PDF

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/en/jvs_esms.htm



November 2012 89

On average, the stock of vacancies in the ten Member States for which data are available halved between mid-2008 and mid-2009 as the crisis struck Europe (Table 33). Vacancies declined by at least 25% in all cases and by more than 70% in the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), which were particularly hard hit by the recession. In the two years that followed there was some recovery with the number of vacancies increasing by an average of 11.9% between mid-2009 and mid-2010 and then 14.3% between mid-2010 and mid-2011. However, in the two years to mid-2013 the number of vacancies again fell by around 4.5% each year. Overall, across the ten countries with data, the stock of vacancies in mid-2013 was just less than half that in mid-2008.

Table 33 – Change in the number of job vacancies, 2008Q2-2013Q2 (%)

2008Q2-2009Q2

2009Q2-2010Q2

2010Q2-2011Q2

2011Q2-2012Q2

2012Q2-2013Q2

2008Q2-2013Q2

Average -53.4 11.9 14.3 -4.6 -4.4 -51.1 BE :

:

:

:

:

:

BG :

-4.1 p 2.5

-4.2 p -14.4 p : CZ -67.4

-31.3

12.0

12.7

-13.9

-75.7

DK :

:

-2.6

-2.5

10.3

: DE :

:

:

4.7 p -8.0 p :

EE -73.9

29.5

20.8

28.9

-7.1

-51.0 IE :

:

:

:

:

:

EL :

-46.2

-26.5

-5.7

-25.6

: ES :

160.3

-26.2

-28.8

12.0 p :

FR :

:

:

:

:

: HR :

:

:

:

-8.4 p :

IT :

:

:

:

:

: CY :

:

-26.9

-42.0

-16.2

:

LV -82.4

-19.7

70.2

6.4

23.2 p -68.5 p LT -74.3

1.9

56.8

-6.3

-0.9

-61.9

LU :

42.3

104.2

-17.4

-11.6

: HU :

23.9

0.5

-3.4 p 7.7 p :

MT :

:

:

:

:

: NL -46.0

-9.7

15.1

-19.4 p -16.7 p -62.3 p

AT :

24.1

20.2

-0.5

-11.4

: PL :

:

:

-15.4

-14.1

:

PT -34.0

16.9

-15.9

3.8

6.0

-28.6 RO -59.1 p -39.5

14.7

-9.9

22.5

-68.7 p

SI -37.0

-2.8

18.3

-14.1

-2.6 p -39.3 p SK -26.5

-28.8

14.0

1.7

3.2

-37.4

FI :

27.1

2.7

4.5

-37.5

: SE :

58.7

37.2

1.4

-11.2

:

UK -33.9 12.0 -4.5 3.2 13.2 -17.4 Source: Eurostat, Job vacancy statistics (online data code: jvs_q_nace2) Notes: “p” data is provisional, “:” data not available. Data for all countries exclude NACE rev.2 sector A. Data for DK exclude NACE rev.2 sectors O-Q. Green highlights indicate changes >10% and red highlights indicate changes <-10%.

Vacancies, unemployment and matching efficiency

The number of vacancies provides some indication of changes in demand for labour but a better illustration can be provided by considering the job vacancy rate which measures vacancies relative to the total number of posts (number of occupied posts plus number of job vacancies)28.

The job vacancy rate varies dramatically between Member States (Figure 32). The highest rates are observed in Belgium and Denmark (both 2.5%) whilst the United

28 See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Occupied_post

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=jvs_q_nace2

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Occupied_post


November 2012 90

Kingdom, Austria and Sweden are the only other countries to have rates in excess of 1.5%. In contrast, rates are no more than 0.6% in Poland, Bulgaria and Latvia.

In general, higher job vacancy rates tend to be associated with lower rates of unemployment and vice versa, though there is not a clear relationship. In 10 of the 12 countries with an unemployment rate above 10% the job vacancy rate is below 1% while it is above 1% in 8 of the 11 countries in which the unemployment rate is below 10% (Figure 32). Spain and Greece stand out as countries where the job vacancy rate perhaps appears to be higher than might be expected given the extreme levels of unemployment. In practice, even in the worst recessionary conditions, there will always be a minimum level of labour turnover as people move between jobs or leave work, either temporarily or permanently, and the vacancy rates in these countries – and possibly in some others – may well be at this level.

Figure 32 - Job vacancy rate and unemployment rate, 2013Q2

Source: Eurostat, Job vacancy statistics and Labour force survey (online data codes: jvs_q_nace2 and lfsq_urgan) Notes: Data not available for DE, FR, IT, MT.

The relationship between the job vacancy rate and the unemployment rate through time is, however, often used as an indicator of the efficiency of matching of supply and demand in the market. In a Beveridge curve (Figure 32) a negative relationship between vacancies and unemployment is expected. However, if the standard hyperbolic curve shifts it can indicate a change in market efficiency. In the first phase of the crisis the curve for the EU-28 as a whole moved downwards as expected in a recession – the job vacancy rate fell as unemployment rose. But since the end of 2009 the job vacancy rate has fluctuated, largely between a limited band between 1.3% and 1.5%, whilst unemployment has continued to rise, thus shifting the curve to the right. Higher unemployment at the same vacancy rate implies less efficient matching of supply and demand. However, this pattern does not hold across all the Member States and the curves by country show considerable differences. Research published by the European Central Bank in 2012 found the significant shifts to have occurred in France and Spain (both outwards, implying lower efficiency) and in Germany (inwards implying greater efficiency)29.

29 ECB working paper “What’s going on behind the euro area Beveridge curve(s)?” Bonthuis, Jarvisand Vanhala

(2013). http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1586.pdf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

BE DK UK AT SE

EU-2

8 EE FI NL

HR HU CZ ES CY LT SK IE EL LU RO SI BG LV PL

Job vacancy rate Unemployment rate

Job vacancy rate (%) Unemployment rate (%)


http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_urgan

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1586.pdf


November 2012 91

Figure 33 - Beveridge curve, EU-28, 2008Q1-2013Q2

Source: Eurostat, Job vacancy statistics and Labour Force Survey (online data codes: jvs_q_nace2 and lfsq_urgan)

PES vacancy databases

Public employment services have a crucial role to play in monitoring market conditions, ensuring transparency and facilitating effective matching of supply and demand. PES databases of both jobseekers and vacancies are key resources in this respect. The PES coverage of vacancies (i.e. the market share) varies considerably between countries depending, to different degrees, on factors such as regulation, the perception of PES in the market, and the extent of PES efforts to exchange and share information with private agencies.

In nine countries employers are, in theory, legally obliged to report vacancies to the PES (Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Sweden)30, though in practice this is not usually enforced. In the majority of Member States, therefore, PES rely on employers volunteering vacancies but may supplement these through vacancy exchange agreements or other initiatives to collect vacancies from external sources. For example, in the Netherlands, the PES uses automated tools to collect vacancies posted on internet job websites and to filter out duplicates. Vacancies gathered in this way are estimated to account for two thirds of the vacancies on the PES database.

Vacancies registered by the PES are typically described using flow data (i.e. the number of new job vacancies registered in a period) rather than stock data (number of vacancies registered at any one time) because it is known that a proportion of apparently open vacancies will in fact already have been filled or cancelled but the PES has not been informed of this by the employer. To cope with this PES typically set expiry dates for vacancies when they are registered in the PES system. These may either be set automatically or (within limits) by the employer and may vary by type of job – each PES has its own set of rules in this respect. For example, in Bulgaria a vacancy typically remains valid for three months, in Ireland for four weeks and in Malta for one week (or one month for positions passed on to the EURES job portal31). PES use a variety of

30 See ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7497&langId=en 31 https://ec.europa.eu/eures/

2008Q1

2009Q1 2010Q1

2011Q1 2012Q1

2013Q1

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0

Job

vaca

ncy

rate

(%)

Unemployment rate (%)


http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsq_urgan

https://ec.europa.eu/eures/


November 2012 92

strategies to try and ensure that the database contains only valid and open vacancies but it is inevitable that some closed or cancelled vacancies will be maintained.

Efforts to ensure that the information in PES vacancy databases is kept up-to-date are crucial to ensure that time is not wasted by referring jobseekers to positions that no longer exist. The same applies to jobseeker databases since employers do not want to receive information about potential candidates who are no longer seeking work. It is equally crucial, moreover, that the information in these databases is of good quality in order that the skills and competences required by employers and possessed by jobseekers are described on a similar basis and can be matched.

In the context of the ongoing process of modernisation amongst European PES, which aims to transform PES into customer focused transition management agencies, recent work has been undertaken with the support of the European Commission to assess the capacity of PES to fulfil the PES 2020 vision32. This was a self-assessment exercise with PES providing their own perception of their current delivery capacity in relation to the shared objectives of the PES 2020 vision. A similar self-assessment exercise, initiated following the Berlin Youth summit in July 2013, considered the PES capacity to support the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes33. Both dealt, in different ways, with the quality, coverage and dissemination of information in PES jobseeker and vacancy databases and in the quality of matching services (e.g. the adequate and suitably trained staff resources, availability of automated matching tools, documented service procedures, etc.). In general, PES tend to consider their databases and information services to be relatively well developed compared to most other service areas but, at the same time, the results were clear that in many cases PES recognise that vacancy databases are weaker and require further investment if they are to better support the demand side of the market.

The main areas for improvement relate to:

• Quality, which can be achieved through the implementation of documented standards (e.g. for describing vacancies) and procedures (e.g. for cleaning of the database to remove duplicates or filled vacancies)

• Coverage, which includes establishing exchange agreements with other agencies, improving electronic exchange methods, and using automated tools to collect vacancies from other sources;

• Dissemination, which should be at least national, and can again be improved through exchange with relevant organisations (e.g. EURES, private employment agencies, trade unions, etc.).

The steps that PES take to improve vacancy databases will be multitude, depending on their starting point and national circumstances but the rest of this section gives a brief glimpse of two quite different initiatives. Firstly, the UK where a new unified information system for jobseekers and employers has been implemented, and secondly France, an example of public-private cooperation for exchange of information on vacancies.

Case study 1: United Kingdom - Universal Jobmatch

Universal Jobmatch is a free on-line job-posting and matching service provided through the British government’s website (https://www.gov.uk/jobsearch) that was introduced in November 2012. Funded by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), it is supplied by Monster Worldwide Services, the parent company of Monster.com which runs a number of popular online recruitment websites.

32 Public employment services contribution to Europe 2020; PES 2020 strategy output paper.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=9690&langId=en 33 HoPES assessment report on PES capacities to implement the Youth Guarantee.


https://www.gov.uk/jobsearch




November 2012 93

Universal Jobmatch replaces the Jobcentre Plus job-search tool and Employer Services Direct which provided an online searchable database of vacancies and CVs for employers and jobseekers but with limited functionality. The new service provides a much more user-friendly and powerful platform. The development and management of the service is outsourced to enable government investment to be combined with private sector experience and expertise with the following aims34:

• modernise DWP service delivery • raise the credibility of DWP services among companies, especially small businesses • bring DWP services to the forefront of recruitment services • support jobseekers in identifying and improving their skills in order to find work • provide greater choice and personalisation of services for jobseekers • increase business efficiency through an effective and efficient service to jobseekers

and companies

Universal Jobmatch is an online recruitment service open to all jobseekers and employers. It provides employers with tools to manage their vacancies (e.g. facilities to handle multiple vacancies, to re-use previous listings, ready-to-use templates) and search for potential candidates. Using the system, employers can receive and manage applications for their vacancies, rate individual applicants and respond to requests for feedback. They can also use the system to test the market by looking at the current supply of jobseekers suitable for a particular vacancy without actually posting it on the system. Jobseekers can manage their personal profile, search for suitable openings and apply for these directly through the platform. The system provides automatic matching of CVs and vacancies and alerts users to potential matches.

Vacancies entered directly by employers are supplemented by vacancies uploaded in bulk from “job warehouse” websites and others gleaned (by agreement) from the internet35. This gives the system a much more comprehensive coverage of vacancies.

An important new aspect of the service is that it now provides a potential means of monitoring the job-search requirement for continued access to out of work benefits (mutual responsibilities). From 1st March 2013, claimants of Jobseekers Allowance can, on the discretion of their JobCentre Plus personal advisor, be required to look for work using the Universal Jobmatch website, or risk losing their benefits. The system provides the means for PES staff to monitor the job applications, searches and other activity of claimants made through the system.

The service nurtures transparency in the labour market by providing free access to a national database of job seekers and vacancies seven days a week, 24 hours a day. A freely accessible management information tool also provides users with access to summary statistics on the characteristics of the jobseeker profiles and vacancies in the system36. This includes, for example, reports on the numbers of new vacancies by sector and industry as well as on the qualifications and experience held by jobseekers and those required by vacancies. Reports typically provide data that can be broken down by a range of criteria including geographic location (country, region, district, local authority unit, local authority ward or town), characteristics of jobseekers (age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc.) and characteristics of vacancies (by employer size, contractual basis, hours, required qualifications, pay, working time, etc.).

Universal Jobmatch clearly has enormous potential but its introduction has not been without problems. The service has been criticised in some quarters for issues such as fake vacancies, inappropriate vacancies (for a government run service), duplicate vacancies and poor quality vacancy specifications37. Such issues are of course not

34 See “Universal Jobmatch equality impact assessment”, Department for Work & Pensions, 3 July 2013.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-jobmatch-equality-impact-assessment 35 http://www.educe.co.uk/?p=1183 36 https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/Reports/Reports.aspx 37 http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/hackers-from-facebook-to-universal-jobmatch/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-jobmatch-equality-impact-assessment

http://www.educe.co.uk/?p=1183

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/Reports/Reports.aspx

http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/hackers-from-facebook-to-universal-jobmatch/


November 2012 94

exclusive to the Universal Jobmatch service, they also occur on other jobsites, but as the government has made use of the service mandatory for some jobseekers it is crucial that the vacancies on the system are real and relevant in order to avoid the situation in which jobseekers have to apply for unsuitable or non-existent vacancies just to meet monitoring requirements and maintain eligibility to benefits. Such problems stem from the lack of restrictions on posting of vacancies. This is a deliberate policy to maximise coverage but in order for it to be effective the open approach should be accompanied by rigorous systems to identify and quickly remove duplicate, inappropriate or fake vacancies and further investment is perhaps needed in this area. Further steps are also required to ensure better quality of information (e.g. to filter out vacancies without adequate description of the position and skills required).

There has also been some criticism of the summary statistics that can be produced using Universal Jobmatch management information tool35. In particular, the lack of guidance and metadata to accompany the data, a failure to use conventional classification systems to describe geographic location, industries and occupations, and the fact that the new system appears to capture a different profile of vacancies compared to its predecessors.

Case study 2: France – Agreement between Prism'emploi and Pole-emploi

In France there is a long tradition of partnership between private employment services (PRES) and public employment services (PES) which plays a significant role in promoting transparency in the national labour market.

The French Association of Employment Agencies, Prism'emploi (Professionnels du recrutement et de l'intérim), represents PRES in France and has more than 600 member companies together accounting for around 90% of the industry’s turnover. As a result it represents as many 6,900 individual employment agencies and 20,000 permanent employees across the country. On behalf of its members the organisation is tasked with four principal objectives38:

• Defend the interests and promote the benefits of the recruitment industry • Represent the industry • Support and inform member companies • Negotiate collective agreements concerning temporary employment

The association was, until recently, known as PRISME (Professionnels de l’intérim, services et métiers de l’emploi) but has since been rebranded as Prism'emploi to further highlight its core activity of employment and to improve its visibility as an important actor on the labour market39.

A cooperation agreement between the French Association of Employment Agencies and the French public employment service (Pôle-emploi) has existed since 199440. This agreement has been renewed and extended twice: first in 2005 and then again in 2010. This overarching agreement is complemented by regional agreements between regional delegates of the federation and the public employment services that are tasked with ensuring the agreement is implemented in practice.

The primary focus of these agreements is to improve the functioning of the labour market at local, regional and national level by contributing to transparency of information and knowledge on job vacancies, fostering inclusion of disadvantaged jobseekers, cultivating recognition of private employment agency services and promoting training41.

38 See http://prisme.eu//Web_Prisme/Missions.aspx 39 See http://prisme.eu//Web_Accueil/Du_SETT_au_PRISME.aspx 40 See http://prisme.eu/Addon_Site/Upload/Autres/Dossier%20de%20presse_13112008.pdf 41 See CIETT position paper for the World Bank consultation for the new Social Protection & Labour strategy

2012-2022: “Better functioning labour markets are key to reduce poverty”, May 2011. http://www.ciett.org/fileadmin/templates/ciett/docs/Position_papers/World_Bank_consultation_for_the_new_Social_Protection_v._30_May_2011.pdf

http://prisme.eu/Web_Prisme/Missions.aspx

http://prisme.eu/Web_Accueil/Du_SETT_au_PRISME.aspx

http://prisme.eu/Addon_Site/Upload/Autres/Dossier%20de%20presse_13112008.pdf

http://www.ciett.org/fileadmin/templates/ciett/docs/Position_papers/World_Bank_consultation_for_the_new_Social_Protection_v._30_May_2011.pdf

http://www.ciett.org/fileadmin/templates/ciett/docs/Position_papers/World_Bank_consultation_for_the_new_Social_Protection_v._30_May_2011.pdf


November 2012 95

The agreement made in 2010 sets out six specific objectives for PRES and the PES42:

• Regular exchange of information on the services offered by both parties and the development of partnerships, as required, at all levels.

• Reinforcement of relations between local PRES and PES to collaborate for the purpose of both recruitment and integration of jobseekers into the labour market.

• Relieve shortages and surpluses in the labour market through the professional development of people without work or in temporary employment.

• Enhance the employability of jobseekers through training pathways that make use of PES services and temporary employment and develop means to validate the professional competences acquired in order to facilitate sustained integration in the labour market.

• Facilitate the integration of jobseekers with difficulties accessing employment due to social or professional reasons, particularly youth in urban areas, older workers, recipients of the minimum income support and those who are handicapped or subject to discrimination.

• Guarantee an identical offer of services to all members of Prism'emploi.

The agreement sets out a series of commitments and actions to be undertaken by both parties in order to achieve these objectives. Those related to market transparency are:

Exchange of information on vacancies: As part of the agreement, Prism’emploi encourages its members to transmit vacancies (temporary, fixed-term or open-ended) to the local PES office with precise information on the characteristics of the vacant posts, the competences required, the location and identification number of the companies concerned. Members are also encouraged to make use of the PES online vacancy database to facilitate this transmission and to inform the PES when such vacancies are closed. In return, the PES guarantees that the names of enterprises are to be treated as confidential and that the jobseekers it considers potential candidates for any given offer are referred to the agencies themselves. The PES cannot use information provided by the PRES for any commercial purpose.

The agreement encourages both PES and PRES to follow pre-defined procedures for use of the PES online vacancy database (pole-emploi.fr). In addition, it encourages both parties to facilitate systematic transmission of vacancies from recruitment agencies to the PES, for example by developing automated transfer procedures.

Sharing of labour market intelligence: The agreement also sets out commitments to exchange and share more general information on the labour market. At national level, Prism’emploi and Pôle-emploi are expected to exchange a range of statistical data concerning the labour market and information on the current and future skills needs of companies. For example, Prism’emploi provides Pôle-emploi with information on the market for temporary jobs, an area in which it specialises. Furthermore, both parties are expected to encourage cooperation at local level to foster information exchange and to establish a common approach to anticipating the needs of the local market and steps that can be taken to meet these. This includes cooperating to inform jobseekers of employment opportunities in sectors when there are labour shortages and with prospects for durable integration of jobseekers.

PES role in placement While the above sections deal with the collection and dissemination of vacancies by the PES, the final and most crucial element of the process is to match jobseekers to the right vacancies and help people find employment. This final section attempts to gauge the extent to which the PES are involved in actual job placements.

42 See agreement between PRISME and Pôle-emploi. November 2010.

http://prisme.eu///Addon_Site/Upload/Autres/Accord%20national%20PRISME%20Pole%20emploi_30112010.pdf

http://prisme.eu/Addon_Site/Upload/Autres/Accord%20national%20PRISME%20Pole%20emploi_30112010.pdf


November 2012 96

For employees who have been in their current job for less than a year the LFS data record whether or not the PES was involved at any point in the process of finding that job. In the LFS, involvement of the PES in placement is taken to mean that the PES made some effective contribution to the process of finding of a job. Usually this involves facilitating contact between the employer and candidate. However, assisting contact should be interpreted broadly and may include cases where an individual found the vacancy details on the PES website and then contacted the employer independently. The involvement of the PES in the placement can therefore be somewhat passive.

Across the EU in 2012, around one in nine (11.8%) people in employment (aged 15-64) had been in their current job as an employee for less than 12 months (Figure 34). The proportion of recent recruits varies from 19.3% in Denmark to 3.8% in Romania and reflects partly on the balance between employers/self-employed and employees in the market (figures on new recruits refer only to employees) and the level of job turnover in national labour markets.

The level of recent recruits among those in employment varies dramatically between age groups. Not surprisingly, given that many are making the first transition from education to work or are in transitional jobs (stepping stone into more desirable longer-term employment), the rate among those aged 15-24 (40.2%) is much higher than the rates for those aged 25-49 and 50-64 (10.9% and 4.8% respectively), who are more likely to be a stable career jobs.

Figure 34 - Share of employment occupied by recent recruits, 2012 (%)


In 2012 the PES was involved to some extent in the placement of 9.4% of recent recruits. The share exceeds 15% in Hungary, Finland, Luxembourg and Croatia, but is less than 3% in the Italy, Spain and Cyprus (Figure 35). Despite the likelihood of being a new recruit being dramatically higher among youth than among other groups, the level of PES involvement in job placement for this group was lower (8.5%) compared with those for older age groups (9.3% for 25-49 and 12.1% for 50-64). However, this does not hold in all the Member states. The PES has more involvement in the placement of youth than any other group in Belgium, Croatia, Poland and Romania.


November 2012 97

Figure 35 - PES involvement in job placement by age, 2012 (% recent recruits)

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey – own calculations Notes: Data for DE, MT, PT, SI not available due to high incidence of non-response in data (>10%) but valid responses are used in the calculation of EU-28 figures. Data for Croatia (50-64) is unreliable.

mobility in europe 2013 - european commission

Documents