GOVERNMENT PAPER
Increasing female employment rates through flexible working arrangements: Norwegian policy Norwegian Ministry of Children and Family Affairs and Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to give an overview of female labour force participation in Norway and describe main elements of Norwegian policy targeted at promoting flexible working arrangements. The specific policy instruments in focus are:
paid leave arrangements where entitlements are linked to previous work; and flexible working time regulations that can facilitate part-time work and family-friendly working time arrangements.
These policy instruments may improve the possibility of combining work with family caring activities and may be a precondition for female labour market participation. This may particularly be the case at specific times in a woman’s life, for example when she has small children. At the same time, these policy instruments may increase temporary absence from work and reduce actual working time, with possible negative effects on the labour supply and on individual career development. The challenge for policy-makers is to reach the right balance between work incentives and welfare possibilities. An equally important challenge is to develop policy instruments in such a way that men and women can share both prospects and commitments in the labour market as well as in family life. The flexible working time arrangements mentioned above form part of a comprehensive strategy for increasing the female labour force participation within a family-friendly and career-developing approach. In addition, there are several other factors that determine women’s choices, especially how women with small children choose to allocate their time between unpaid childcare and paid work: preferences and cultural aspects, educational level, the availability, quality and price of childcare, family income, family taxation policies and general welfare policies. All these elements play a role in women’s employment decision and should be taken into consideration in an overall assessment of any specific policy element. Nevertheless, this paper will only deal with the flexible working arrangements mentioned above. One good reason for focusing on these specific policy elements is the relatively important role these arrangements play in the Norwegian family policy model. Another important reason is the high rate of participation in these arrangements and the combination of high employment rates and a high level of temporary absence from work. The rest of the paper is organised as follows: In section 2, we present an overall picture of some relevant aspects of the Norwegian labour market and family support schemes in an international context and some trends in female employment. Section 3 gives a detailed description of paid leave arrangements and benefits and rights for parents with small 26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 1 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
children. Rights and opportunities in connection with flexible working time arrangements are presented in section 4. 2. Facts and figures 2.1
Comparison with other countries Compared to other European countries, an above average proportion of the working age population is in the labour force and is in fact working in Norway, but they work shorter hours than in many other countries. Much of the difference between Norway and the rest of Europe is due to female adaptation to the labour market, supported by generous schemes directed towards families with small children. The result is a combination of high female labour market participation and a relatively high fertility rate in an international context. Labour market participation, employment and unemployment Participation in the Norwegian labour market – as compared to the EU and OECD averages – is characterised by (see Table 1 for details):
High overall participation rates in the labour market, for both men and women. Participation rates are high for women in all age groups, for men only for the youngest and oldest age group. Participation rates are high for women irrespective of educational level, but for men only among those with at least upper secondary education.
The employment pattern may be described in the same way:
High employment rates overall, for both men and women. Employment levels are high for women in all age groups and for women at all educational levels, while the employment level among prime-aged men is somewhat lower than in the old EU countries and as compared to the OECD average. In addition, the incidence of part-time work is slightly higher than in other European countries.
The unemployment situation:
Low unemployment levels for both men and women, in all age groups and at all educational levels. Lower unemployment level among prime-aged women than among prime-aged men, while the opposite is the case in most other countries. Very low levels of long-term unemployment for both men and women.
The facets of working time Table 2 shows annual working time among dependent or paid employees across European countries. The table does not reflect gender differences, but it nevertheless shows some important facets of the general working time pattern. Norwegian workers have the second shortest annual working time, beaten from below only by the Netherlands. Further, Table 2 decomposes annual working time into: i) the average 26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 2 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
hours worked per week (Column b); and ii) the number of weeks actually worked (Column e). As can be seen from the table, the short annual working hours in Norway can mainly be explained by the following factors:
Relatively few hours spent on the main job (Column c), which can primarily be explained by the incidence of part-time work. Extra hours due to overtime and second jobs (Column d) is, on the other hand, quite high and contributes to increasing the actual weekly hours worked (Column b). Relatively few weeks worked per year (Column e), only second to Sweden. This may to some extent be explained by holidays and vacations (Column f), but more important are – sickness and maternity leave (Column g), and – absence for other reasons (Column h).
Cross-country differences in annual actual hours worked per employee are largely explained by cross-country variations in average weekly hours, and the number of days of vacation and public holidays. Norway and Sweden are exceptions, since sickness and maternity leave and absence for other reasons significantly shortens the length of the work year. Labour supply On the one hand, the high number of part-time workers and absence from work reduces total labour utilisation, while on the other hand the high employment rate contributes to increasing labour supply. The total number of hours worked is distributed among a large section of the population. As a result, Norway ranks second lowest in hours worked per worker (Table 2), but very close to the average of the old EU countries in annual hours worked per capita (Figure 1). Support for families with children A common feature of all welfare states is a system of support for families with children. The components of these systems differ, and countries have various combinations of direct cash benefits, services in-kind and subsidies designed to assist families in bringing up children, see Table 3. In most countries there is statutory paid maternity leave. Some countries also have employer-provided maternity leave in addition. Features of public sector expenditure on families in Norway as compared to other countries:
Overall expenditure is relatively high. In 2001, spending on families averaged 3.2 percent of GDP in Norway as compared to 2.2 percent in the old EU countries. Norway has the highest share of spending on maternity and parental leave schemes, with 0.8 per cent of GDP (equal to ¼ of total family support) as compared to 0.3 in the old EU countries (or 1/7 of total family support). Spending on family allowances, other cash benefits and day-care/home-help services is close to the average for old EU countries.
The combination of a high share of spending on maternity and parental leave and the relatively high level of absence from work due to maternity leave illustrates the importance of such arrangements in the Norwegian family support system.
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 3 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Fertility The fertility rate is now fairly high in Norway compared with many other OECD countries, see Figure 2, while the opposite was the case only a few decades ago. Declining birth rates and numbers of children have been more significant in other countries, while Norway has been able to maintain a high fertility rate and at the same time increase women’s participation in the labour market. This development can to some extent be explained by a package of general welfare policies, including the family support schemes discussed above and flexible working time arrangements that make it possible to combine work and family life. 2.2
Some national trends in employment, part-time work and under-employment The share of employed women has increased considerably in recent years. From 1972 to 2004, the share of employed women has increased from 44 to 66 per cent. The share of employed men declined somewhat in the same period (Figure 3). Part-time employees account for approximately ¼ of the employed population. Most part-timers are women (76 percent). This means that 43 per cent of all employed women work part-time.1 In recent years, the share of part-time workers has remained approximately unchanged overall. The share of women in part-time employment has declined, while the share of men in part-time employment has increased (Figure 4). Part-time employment is concentrated in certain occupations, and these occupations are generally dominated by women. In the retail and service sectors, somewhat more than 50 per cent of all staff works part time. The same occupations have the highest rate of under-employment. Part-time work is most common among the less educated section of the population. Part-time working typically has a U-shaped age distribution. The younger and the elder workers are more inclined to work part-time. In particular, this is the case for male workers. A popular belief is that women work part-time in the period when they have small children. Statistics show, however, that women without small children also tend to work part-time (Table 4). Involuntary part-time employment or under-employment refers to part-time employed persons seeking longer regular/normal working hours by registering at the Public Employment Office, advertising, contacting their present employer etc., and who are able to increase working hours within a month.
Note that the national numbers for part-time work referred to in this section is significantly higher than the Norwegian part-time numbers from OECD in Section 2.1, for two reasons: The main reason is that the definition of part-time work is stricter in the OECD numbers (restrict part-time work to less than 30 hours) than in the national numbers (include also part-time work between 30-36 weekly hours). In addition, the age group is wider in the national data (16-74 years) as opposed to the international data (15/16-64 years).
1
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 4 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Among part-time employees, 14 per cent of the men and 16 per cent of the women are categorized as under-employed. In many ways, the degree of part-time employment shadows the degree of unemployment. Under-employment is significantly affected by economic cycles (Figure 3). Under-employment varies more for female workers than for male workers, and some claim that under-employment is women’s unemployment problem. Under-employment is most common among the less educated part of the population. It is a problem that many part-time workers want to work more, but are not able to obtain more work from their employer. A Government-appointed tripartite committee (“The part-time committee”) discussed problems of under-employment in their report, which was presented last fall (NOU 2004:29 “Kan flere jobbe mer?”). The Government proceeded this spring with a bill that suggested that staff in part-time employment who applies for vacant positions within their firm should be given preference over other applicants if they have the appropriate formal qualifications. 3. Paid leave arrangements for parents with children 3.1
Parental benefits Parental and adoption benefits are intended to replace pay during leave of absence after a birth or an adoption in the family. The right to benefits is laid down in the National Insurance Act and the right to leave of absence in the Working Environment Act. In order to be entitled to parental or adoption benefit, the mother must have been employed and earning an income for at least 6 of the 10 months immediately prior to the commencement of the benefit period, while the father must have been employed and earning an income for 6 of the 10 months immediately prior to the commencement of his part of the benefit period. If the parent’s income exceeds a certain threshold (NOK 352.668 per year (2004))2, parental or adoption benefit will not cover the excess amount. Agreements whereby employers provide full pay are relatively common. The parental benefit period is either 52 weeks on 80% pay or 42 weeks on 100% pay.3 Parents must choose one of these alternatives before the child is born. The most common choice is the 80% alternative, used in 75% of cases (2003). The chosen alternative then applies for the whole period. Parental benefits are calculated on the basis of the income of the parent who takes leave of absence. The National Insurance Act has been amended to allow the father to receive parental benefit based on his own rights regardless of whether or not the mother has earned rights. This depends on what the mother does after the birth or
2
The amount is about equal to 42.000 € or close to 20% above the average wage of production workers in Norway.
In the case of multiple children born simultaneously, the benefit period is increased by seven weeks for each additional child if the parents choose the 80 % alternative or by five weeks for each additional child if they choose the 100 % alternative.
3
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 5 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
adoption of the child. The father is not entitled to parental benefits while the mother is at home looking after the child. The father is also entitled to parental benefits if the mother is unable to look after the child owing to illness or injury or admission to a health institution. Parental benefits are regarded as taxable income on a par with ordinary pay. Adoption benefits are paid by the same rules but reduced to 49 weeks on full pay or 39 weeks on 80% pay. Up to 1977 maternity benefit was paid for 12 weeks. In 1977 the period was prolonged to 18 weeks and it was made possible to share between the parents. Ten years later, in 1987, the first of a number of extensions of the parental leave period was introduced – and continued at two or three weeks per year – to achieve an election promise from several political parties of “one year’s parental leave”. In 1989 the 80%pay alternative was introduced, becoming almost at once the most common way to use the leave. In 1992 parental leave was 33 weeks. In 1993 the last nine weeks up to the current 42 weeks (52 on 80% pay) was introduced together with the paternity quota (see below). Sharing paid leave of absence Parents may choose to share the period of paid leave between them. However, certain weeks must be taken according to specific rules. The mother must take three weeks of the parental benefit period prior to delivery. Six weeks after the birth are reserved for the mother for health reasons and four weeks are reserved for the father (paternity quota, see below). This means that 13 weeks of the parental benefit period are fixed, regardless of whether the parents have chosen the 42 or 52 week alternative. Apart from this, the parents may divide the period between them. The paternity quota Since 1977 the mother and father may choose who is going to stay home with parental benefit. As very few fathers used this right and stayed home, the paternity quota was introduced in 1993 “as mild coercion”. If both the mother and the father qualify for parental benefit, four weeks of the benefit period are reserved for the father. In addition, the mother must have worked at least 50% of a full-time post in order to qualify father for the paternity quota. If the father does not make use of the paternity quota, the weeks will normally be forfeit. In certain cases, the weeks can be transferred to the mother if fathers cannot utilise their paternity quota. There is no requirement that the mother must return to work (or education etc.) when the father utilises his paternity quota. When the father takes part of the parental leave according to the principle of sharing (see above), it is required that he is responsible for the daily care of the child. Nearly 90% of the fathers with an earned right used their quota, or 60% of all fathers. The total length of the father’s part of the parental leave is increasing, albeit slowly. Table 5 shows developments since 1988. The time account scheme Under the time account scheme, parents may combine parental or adoption benefits with shorter working hours. The period of full-time leave of absence is reduced, but the 26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 6 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
size of the parental benefit remains the same. The benefit period is extended, and the parents can combine work with care of the child without loss of income. The scheme was introduced in 1994 to allow more flexible use of parental leave. Only 2.2% use this scheme, and the tendency has been towards fewer cases per year rather than more. It is more common to use this in connection with adoption benefit. Lump sum maternity grant Women who do not quality for parental benefit will receive a lump sum grant. All women therefore receive some form of benefit when they give birth. The lump sum grant is NOK 33.584 (2004)4. The grant is not subject to taxation. In the case of multiple births or adoptions, the grant is payable for each child. Employed women who have earned less than the lump sum grant will receive the grant instead of parental benefit. About 25% of mothers giving birth receive this lump sum grant instead of parental benefit. The share is declining. Towards a more gender-equal parental benefits scheme Current policy is that the mother and father of a child should be more equal as regards entitlement to parental benefit. This can only be achieved by strengthening the father’s independent rights. At the same time, however, consideration of the family’s freedom of choice is given considerable weight. Today’s system is built on a working mother’s right to maternity leave. To make this a good system for two parents to share while retaining focus on the needs of the child for parental care, some modernization is required. 3.2
The right to leave of absence if the child or childminder is ill Employees who care for children under the age of 12 are entitled to leave with pay (care pay) to look after sick children. Each parent is entitled to leave with care pay for up to 10 days per year. Parents with more than two children are entitled to 15 days each. Single providers are entitled to 20 days' leave to look after sick children, or 30 days if they have the care of more than two children under the age of 12. This right was introduced in 1977. Even if one parent has sole care of the children, the parents may share the right to leave in proportion to the agreed access rights. We do not have statistics on the use of these rights. If the child is chronically ill, disabled, hospitalized or suffering from an extremely serious illness, the right to paid leave is extended. This right was used in about 8 600 cases in 2003.
4
The amount is about equal to 4000 €.
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 7 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
3.3
Cash benefit scheme for families with small children The cash benefit scheme was introduced in 1998/1999. The right to the cash benefit applies to parents with children aged one and two years old. Parents may receive the cash benefit on the condition that they do not make use of a full-time place in a daycare centre that receives a state grant. If the child is to be in the daycare centre for less than 33 hours a week, the family will be entitled to a reduced cash benefit. Parents are not entitled to receive cash benefits while they are receiving full parental/adoption benefits. The cash benefit is payable for each child without means or needs testing and it is tax free. The mother or father may apply, and the benefit is paid to the person applying for it. The monthly amount paid is NOK 3.657 (full benefit 2005)5. In January 1999, 67.9 % of the children aged one or two received cash benefit (full or reduced). In January 2005 this applied to 64.6%. In the same period the percentage children in the same age groups in daycare centres rose from 40.1% to 47.1%. The combination of some cash benefit combined with part-time daycare has become more common.
4. Flexible working time arrangements 4.1
General rights and possibilities related to flexible working time arrangements The Worker Protection and Working Environment Act has established that “normal” or ordinary working hours should not exceed 9 hours per day or 40 hours per week. For shift work and comparable rota work the established ordinary working hours are either 38 or 36 hours per week depending on the shift work arrangement. Weekly working hours may be varied over a 52-week reference period as long as an average of 40 hours a week is maintained. Collective agreements provided weekly working hours at 37 ½ hours per week, and this is also the principal rule for employees that are not bound by collective agreements. Since most employees work 37 ½ hours per week, an average of 40 hours gives the opportunity to “save” up to 130 hours from one year to another. The total of overtime and ordinary working hours must not exceed 14 hours in any 24hour period. Ordinary working hours for employees shall be arranged so that they have at least 10 hours’ rest between periods of work. Normally, employees may not work more than 48 hours, including overtime, in any four-month period. The Act contains provisions where the reference period as well as maximum overtime hours may be extended under circumstances stated in the Act. The employer can under certain circumstances decide to extend the overtime limit up to 200 hours per year, and overtime up to 400 hours per year is allowed by individual
5
Corresponding to nearly 440 €.
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 8 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
agreement between the employer and the employee. The employee shall receive extra pay for overtime work. The extra pay shall be at least 40% of normal wages. Work between the hours of 2100 and 0600 is defined as night work. Neither night work nor work on Sundays and other holidays must be performed in cases other than those specially mentioned in the Working Environment Act. Examples are work in institutions providing medical care and nursing, work by the police, fire service, customs service, newspapers, broadcasting services, work that is necessary to prevent damage to a plant, machinery, raw materials or products etc. The Worker Protection and Working Environment Act (WPA) contains several provisions aimed at improving the balance between work and family life. As stated above, the Act provides the opportunity to calculate average working hours and consequently organise work in a flexible manner. In enterprises where calculating average working hours has been used, the response has been positive from both employers and employees. Developments seem to indicate increased demand for flexible organisation of working time. About 30% of the employees have agreements with their employer for flexible regulation of working hours. Studies indicate that one in four employees asks for more flexible regulation of working time. There are also indications that women are more inclined to ask for more flexible working hours than men. The WPA gives the employee the right to refuse to work overtime for reasons of health or for weighty social reasons (i.e. care of young children). Furthermore, an employee can also refuse to work overtime for other personal reasons, if the work can safely be postponed or performed by others. As described below, an employee also has the right to a reduction of working hours for health, social or other welfare reasons (i.e. care of young children) if this can be arranged without causing considerable inconvenience to the enterprise. Proposed amendments The Worker Protection and Working Environment Act is currently under review. The current Government has proposed amendments to the working time regulations in an effort to achieve more flexibility for both employer and employee, and to make it easier to combine family life with working life. One of the new proposals is a right for the employee to work flexible hours if this can be arranged without causing considerable inconvenience to the enterprise. The proposal does not give a definition of flexible working hours. It is up to the employer and employee to agree upon a solution that suits both. For instance, a system of flexible working hours can give the employee the right to choose (i.e. within certain limits) when to start and end the working day. Or employees can have the opportunity to work longer hours 4 days in a week and then have the fifth day off. Other possibilities could be to work more during the winter and have longer periods with time off in the summer when children are on holiday from school/kindergarten. Because an employee’s right to flexible working hours depends on whether this can be arranged without causing particular inconvenience to the enterprise, employees’ need for flexibility is balanced by employers’ interests.
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 9 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
The employee’s right to flexible working hours is an individual right. Even if an employer has entered into a collective agreement that gives employees the right to use a flexible working time system, this does not preclude the individual employee’s right to an individually-adjusted working time system. To have several individual working time systems in combination with a collective system can, however, in some situations cause considerable inconvenience for the employer and thus restrict an employee’ right to an individual working time system. 4.2
Specific rights for parents with small children Extended leave of absence Each parent is entitled to up to one year’s unpaid leave for each child in addition to the parental or adoption benefit period. This leave must be taken in conjunction with statutory leave in connection with pregnancy and birth in the family. Parents may take this (unpaid) leave simultaneously. Unpaid leave is not included in the earning period for the right to benefits, such as parental benefit or sick pay. Employees who have sole responsibility for the care of a child are entitled to up to two years’ additional leave for each child (three years in all). If the mother is not working, but the father is, he is entitled to unpaid leave for a period of up to two years. The father is entitled to two weeks’ unpaid leave in connection with the birth of a child, regardless of whether the mother has been employed or not, provided that he is living with the mother and spends these two weeks looking after the family and the home. This leave may be taken either before the child is born, after the child is born, or after the mother and child come home from the hospital, but must be completed no later than two weeks after they come home from the hospital. If the parents are not living together, this right may be transferred to another person who helps the mother. Leave of absence for nursing mothers Nursing mothers are entitled to at least one hour off each day, or as necessary for this purpose. Alternatively, if she prefers to do so, a nursing mother can reduce her working hours by one hour per day by arriving one hour later or leaving one hour earlier than her normal working hours. The right to shorter working hours Both the mother and father are entitled to work shorter hours if this is necessary for strong welfare reasons, such as the desire and need of parents of small children to spend more time with their children. Permission to work shorter hours can only be granted if this will not seriously inconvenience the enterprise concerned. Disputes between employers and employees are settled by the labour inspection office. Practical experience of the rules indicates that the inconvenience to the enterprise must be considerable before an application for shorter working hours can be denied. The Working Environment Act does not give employees who work shorter hours the right to retain full pay. Shorter working hours may be taken in the form of a shorter
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 10 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
working day, fewer working days per week or work-free periods. The need for work-free periods may arise, for example, in connection with long school holidays. Employees who wish to work shorter hours must notify their employer in writing as soon as possible and at least four weeks in advance. It is possible to apply for shorter working hours for up to two years at a time. Employees have the right to return to their former working hours when the agreed period is over.
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 11 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Table 1: Summary statistics of the Norwegian labour market, by gender, compared to EU and OECD average (2003) Norway
EU-15
EU-19
OECD
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Labour force participation rates (15-64 years)
75.9
82.9
61.3
79.2
60.9
78.0
59.6
80.2
- 15-24 years
62.0
63.2
46.4
53.6
43.2
50.6
45.5
55.1
- 25-54 years
82.4
90.0
72.9
92.2
73.6
91.6
68.0
92.0
- 55-64 years
64.7
74.7
33.7
56.4
32.2
54.8
42.0
65.4
- Less than upper secondary education a
58.5
74.4
46.6
77.3
46.2
76.0
45.3
79.3
- Upper secondary education a
79.6
88.0
72.4
86.5
72.0
86.0
69.2
87.4
- Tertiary education a
88.9
94.0
84.6
91.4
84.7
91.4
77.9
92.1
Employment/population rates (15-64 years)
72.9
78.8
56.1
73.5
54.9
71.4
55.3
74.7
- 15-24 years
55.4
55.2
39.5
45.7
35.6
41.6
39.7
47.5
- 25-54 years
79.7
86.1
67.2
86.4
66.9
84.9
63.7
86.7
- 55-64 years
63.9
73.5
31.8
53.2
30.3
51.5
40.3
62.0
- Less than upper secondary education a
56.5
72.0
41.0
70.9
40.2
68.9
41.5
73.5
- Upper secondary education a
77.4
85.3
67.0
81.5
65.5
79.8
64.5
81.9
- Tertiary education a
87.2
91.8
80.4
87.8
80.4
87.9
74.8
88.7
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review 12
Increasing the employment of women through flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Incidence of part-time employment b
33.4
9.9
30.1
6.3
27.6
6.1
24.8
7.2
Unemployment rates (15-64 years)
4.0
4.9
8.6
7.2
9.9
8.4
7.2
6.9
- 15-24 years
10.7
12.7
14.7
14.8
17.7
17.7
12.8
13.8
- 25-54 years
3.3
4.3
7.9
6.3
9.1
7.3
6.3
5.8
- 55-64 years
1.2
1.6
5.6
5.7
5.9
6.1
4.1
5.2
- Less than upper secondary education a
3.5
3.2
12.0
8.3
12.8
9.3
8.4
7.4
- Upper secondary education a
2.7
3.1
7.4
5.8
9.0
7.2
6.8
6.3
- Tertiary education a
1.9
2.3
5.0
3.9
5.1
3.9
3.9
3.6
Incidence of long-term unemployment (6 months +) c
16.8
23.3
62.9
59.8
65.3
62.5
46.8
44.6
Incidence of long-term unemployment (12 months +) c
5.4
7.1
45.2
41.8
47.0
43.9
31.5
29.4
Notes: a) Persons aged 25-64 years, 2002-numbers. b) Part-time work (defined as less than 30 hours worked) in percentage of total employment. c) Percentage of total unemployment. Source: OECD Employment Outlook 2004.
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review 13
Increasing the employment of women through flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Table 2: The anatomy of a typical working year for dependent employees across Europe, 2002 Annual hours worked a
Weekly hours
Weeks per year
Sum average weekly hours
Usual week in the main job
Extra hours a
Annual weeks worked
Holidays and vacation
Sickness and maternity
Other reasons b
b=c+d
c
d
e = 52 –
f
g
h
(f + g + h)
Austria
1497
38.4
36.6
1.8
39.0
7.2
2.6
3.2
Belgium
1451
36.3
35.7
0.6
40.0
7.1
2.1
2.8
Czech Republic
1692
41.3
40.4
1.0
41.0
6.2
2.2
2.6
Denmark
1410
36.3
34.8
1.5
38.9
7.4
1.8
3.9
Spain
1639
38.8
38.6
0.3
42.2
7.0
1.2
1.6
Finland
1491
38.8
36.9
1.8
38.5
7.0
2.1
4.4
France
1467
36.2
35.2
1.1
40.5
7.0
1.9
2.6
Germany
1480
36.5
35.2
1.3
40.6
7.8
1.4
2.2
Greece
1816
40.7
40.2
0.5
44.6
6.7
0.2
0.5
Hungary
1798
40.9
40.3
0.6
43.9
6.3
0.8
1.0
Iceland
1714
43.2
39.9
3.4
39.6
6.1
1.9
4.4
Ireland
1585
36.3
35.8
0.5
43.7
5.7
1.0
1.6
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review 14
Increasing the employment of women through flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Italy
1533
37.4
37.2
0.2
41.0
7.9
1.0
2.1
Luxembourg
1582
37.9
37.3
0.6
41.7
7.5
1.2
1.6
Netherlands
1223
31.8
30.1
1.7
38.4
7.5
2.2
3.9
Norway
1339
37.3
34.8
2.5
36.0
6.5
3.6
5.9
Poland
1817
41.8
40.2
1.6
43.4
6.2
0.9
1.5
Portugal
1688
40.4
39.3
1.1
41.8
7.3
1.2
1.7
Slovak Republic
1761
41.8
41.4
0.4
42.2
6.9
1.4
1.5
Sweden
1349
38.1
36.0
2.1
35.4
6.8
3.8
6.0
Switzerland
1586
37.5
34.3
3.2
42.3
6.0
1.1
2.6
United Kingdom
1546
38.2
37.2
1.1
40.5
6.5
1.6
3.4
Notes: a) Extra hours in the main job (overtime + variable hours + others) and work in additional job(s). b) Includes absence due to bad weather, slack work for technical and economic reasons, labour disputes, education and training, other reasons. Source:
26 – 27 May 2005
OECD
Employment
Peer Review 15
Increasing the employment of women through flexible work arrangements, Norway
Outlook
2004.
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Table 3: Support for families across OECD countries, percentage of GDP in 2001 Maternity and parental leave
Family allowances
Other cash benefits
Total cash benefits
Day care / Home-help services
Other benefits in kind
Total family services
Australia
0.0
2.4
0.0
2.4
0.2
0.3
0.5
2.9
Austria
0.4
2.0
0.0
2.4
0.5
0.0
0.6
2.9
Belgium
0.2
1.7
0.0
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.4
2.3
Canada
0.2
0.7
a
0.9
a
x
0.0
0.9
Czech Republic
0.5
0.6
0.3
1.5
0.1
0.0
0.1
1.6
Denmark
0.5
1.0
a
1.5
2.1
0.2
2.3
3.8
Finland
0.6
1.0
0.1
1.7
1.0
0.3
1.4
3.0
France
0.3
1.1
0.0
1.5
0.6
0.7
1.3
2.8
Germany
0.2
0.8
0.2
1.1
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.9
Greece
0.3
0.6
0.1
1.1
0.4
0.3
0.7
1.8
Hungary
0.6
1.3
0.1
1.9
0.1
0.5
0.6
2.5
Iceland
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.0
0.4
1.4
2.6
Ireland
0.1
0.6
0.7
1.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
1.6
Italy
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
1.0
Japan
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
a
0.3
0.6
Korea
a
0.0
a
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
Luxembourg
x
x
a
2.9
0.6
a
0.6
3.4
Mexico
a
a
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
Netherlands
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.7
0.4
a
0.4
1.1
New Zealand
a
0.8
1.2
2.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
2.2
Norway
0.8
1.0
0.2
1.9
0.7
0.5
1.3
3.2
Poland
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.9
a
a
0.0
0.9
Portugal
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.5
1.2
Slovak Republic
0.5
0.8
0.0
1.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.5
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 16 flexible work arrangements, Norway
Total spending
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Spain
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
Sweden
0.7
0.9
0.1
1.8
0.9
0.2
1.1
2.9
Switzerland
0.0
1.1
a
1.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.2
Turkey
0.0
0.4
0.6
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.1
United Kingdom
0.1
0.9
0.9
1.9
0.2
0.1
0.3
2.2
a
0.1
a
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.4
OECD
0.3
0.8
0.2
1.3
0.4
0.2
0.5
1.8
EU-15
0.3
0.9
0.2
1.4
0.5
0.2
0.7
2.2
United States
Note: 1999 for Turkey. Source: OECD Social Expenditure Database (www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure).
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 17 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Table 4: Total number of employed women and part-time employed women in Norway and the rate of employed women working part time Number of employed
Number of
women
part-time employed
Rate of employed women working part time
1 068 396
462 632
43.3
Women without children or women with children older than 16 years
633 123
263 972
41.7
Woman with children younger than 16 years
435 272
198 660
45.6
0-2 years
112 658
47 427
42.1
3-6 years
118 925
61 336
51.6
7-10 years
94 978
45 034
47.4
11-15 years
108 712
44 862
41.3
All women
Of this:
Note: Women aged 16-74 years. Part-time work includes short (less than 30 hours per week) and long part-time work (30-36 hours).
Source: Labour Force Survey, Q4 2002, Statistics Norway
Table 5: Development in mothers’ and fathers’ use of parental benefits 1988-2003 Total numbers Mothers who used parental benefits
Fathers entitled to parental benefits 2
Per cent Fathers who used the paternity quota
Fathers who used the paternity quota in % of entitled
1988
34 748
(208)
(0.6)
1989
36 626
(382)
(1.0)
1990
36 751
(617)
(1.7)
1991
40 932
(820)
(2.0)
1992
38 900
(920)
(2.4)
1993
38 525
(1 567)
(4.1)
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Share of fathers using more than 4 weeks
Increasing the employment of women through 18 flexible work arrangements, Norway
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Total numbers
Per cent
Mothers who used parental benefits
Fathers entitled to parental benefits 2
Fathers who used the paternity quota
Fathers who used the paternity quota in % of entitled
1994
37 869
30 295
12 738
42
19951
43 556
34 845
21 571
62
1996
45 474
36 377
25 409
70
1997
48 664
38 932
29 238
75
1998
48 159
38 528
30 192
78
1999
48 478
38 783
31 136
80
10.9
2000
49 585
39 668
32 659
82
11.1
2001
49 503
39 602
33 679
85
13.5
2002
47 024
37 619
33 019
88
15.2
2003
46 690
37 352
33 164
89
15.1
Share of fathers using more than 4 weeks
Note1: From 1995 the numbers include persons employed by the state
Note 2: In 1/5 of the births where the mother is entitled to parental benefits, fathers do not have an obligation to use the paternity quota. In these cases, the mother may be a lone mother or the fathers may be unemployed. Fathers who are not entitled to a paternity quota may have independent entitlement to parental benefits. This is conditional on the child’s need for care, either because the mother returns to work or studies after delivery or because she is too ill to take care of the baby herself. In 2003, 1533 fathers received parental benefits on an independent basis.
Source: National Insurance Service
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 19 flexible work arrangements, Norway
26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
0,5
0,0 Korea
Denmark
United Kingdom
Finland
Slovakia
OECD
Portugal
USA
New Zealand
Australia
Canada
Japan
Switzerland
Tsjekkia
Iceland
Increasing the employment of women through 20 flexible work arrangements, Norway Spain
Italy France
Tsjekkia
Belgium
Netherlands
Hungary
Germany
Norway
Eu-15
Greece
Italy
Spain
Slovakia
Greece
Hungary
Poland
Austria
Japan
Mexico
1,0
Germany
1,5 Irland
2,0 Sweden
2,5
Switzerland
Figure 2: Fertility rate across OECD countries in 2000
Portugal
Sweden
United Kingdom
Belgium
Netherlands
Finland
Australia
Denmark
Luxembourg
Norway
Ireland
France
New Zealand
Iceland
USA
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Figure 1: Annual hours worked per capita across OECD countries 2002 1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Figure 3: Employment rates in total and by gender. Percentage of population (age 16-74), 19722004 100
80 Male Total 60 Female 40
20
20 04
20 02
20 00
19 98
19 96
19 94
19 92
19 90
19 88
19 86
19 84
19 82
19 80
19 78
19 76
19 74
19 72
0
Figure 4: Part-time employment rate (16-74 year) 1989-2004, total and by gender 60
50 female
percent
40
30
male + female
20 male 10
0 1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Note: Part-time work includes short (less than 30 hours per week) and long part-time work (30-36 hours) 26 – 27 May 2005
Peer Review
Increasing the employment of women through 21 flexible work arrangements, Norway
2003
2004
GOVERNMENT PAPER
Figure 5: Under-employment and unemployment rate, total and by gender. Percentage of the labour force, 1989-2004
8
7 under-employment female 6
percent
5
unemployment
4 3
under-employment total
2 under-employment male
1
0 1989
1990
26 – 27 May 2005
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Peer Review
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Increasing the employment of women through 22 flexible work arrangements, Norway
2004
2005
