Towards a set of composite indicators on Flexicurity: The Composite indicator on Active Labour Market Policies

Abstract This paper presents a composite indicator to measure Effective Active Labour Market Policies (ALMP) using 16 indicators based on the Eurostat¿s Labour Market Policies DataBase. Alongside the composite index on Life Long Learning (LLL) previously elaborated, the present index has been developed within the joint DG EMPL/DG JRC project aimed to measure Flexicurity in the EU through a set of four composite indicators corresponding to the four main pillars of flexicurity as identified in the 2006 Commission Communication on this topic (COM(2007) 359). The ALMPs index is computed following the methodology developed in the OECD/JRC handbook on composite indicators. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 lists the indicators and presents their characteristics and problems. Section 3 presents the methodology adopted for computation of a composite indicator. Section 4 shows the results. Section 5 carries out uncertainty analysis of their robustness. Finally, section 6 presents results on a country-by-country basis.JRC.G.9-Econometrics and applied statistic

The consumer empowerment index. A measure of skills, awareness and engagement of European consumers

The Consumer Empowerment Index is a pilot exercise, aimed at obtaining a first snapshot of the state of consumer empowerment as measured by the Eurobarometer survey (Special Eurobarometer n. 342). It is neither a final answer on empowerment nor a comprehensive study on all the different facets of consumer empowerment, but instead it is meant to foster the debate on the determinants of empowerment and their importance for protecting consumers. This report describes the steps followed in the construction of the Index of consumer Empowerment. In particular the definition of the theoretical framework, the quantification of categorical survey questions, the univariate and multivariate analysis of the dataset, and the set of weight used for calculating the scores and ranks of the Index. The report also discusses the robustness of the results and the relationship between the Index and the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents in order to identify the features of the most vulnerable consumers. The Consumer Empowerment Index identifies Norway as the leading country followed by Finland, the Netherlands and Germany and Denmark. The middle of the ranking is dominated by western countries such as Belgium, France, and UK, with an average score 13% lower than the top five. At the bottom of the Index are some Eastern and Baltic countries like Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania with a score 31% lower on average (this gap reaches 40% and 38% in Awareness of consumer legislation and Consumer skills). A group of southern countries, Italy, Portugal, and Spain score poorly in the Index, especially in the pillar Consumer skills where the gap with the top performers reaches 30%.Consumer empowerment; composite indicators

Towards a set of Composite Indicators on Flexicurity: a Comprehensive Approach

The European Commission¿s Lisbon Agenda aims to enhance both flexibility and security in the labour markets in order to reconcile competitiveness and sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion (COM(2007)359). The pursuit of a balance between flexibility and security addresses simultaneously -the flexibility of labour markets, work organization and labour relations, and -security, including employment and social security for weaker groups in and out of the labour market. This is the concept of flexicurity whereby flexibilisation of employment and labour markets is advocated to support productivity, competitiveness and growth, while security is advocated from a social policy perspective emphasising the importance of preserving social cohesion within society (Wilthagen, 1998). The approach of flexicurity implies that the policies for more and better jobs are developed in coordination with social partners from both sides, i.e. employees and employers, through public or private partnership and are aimed to ensure security to workers in and out of the labour market reducing risks of social exclusion (Wilthagen and Tros, 2004). Moreover, flexicurity also concerns progress of workers into better jobs, development of talent and support of transitions during life course, e.g. from school to work, from job to job, between unemployment and employment and from work to retirement. Therefore, security implies equipping people with the skills that enable them to progress in their working lives, and helping them find a new job rapidly when unemployed. It is also about adequate unemployment benefits to facilitate transitions towards new jobs. Finally, it encompasses training opportunities for all workers, especially weaker groups such as the low skilled and older workers. This paper has been developed in this framework and presents the findings of a research project carried out by the Joint Research Centre- (Unit G09-Econometrics and Applied Statistics) and DG Employment (Unit D1 ¿ Employment Analysis) of the European Commission . The project aimed to develop statistical tools to measure flexicurity achievements of EU Member States through a set of four composite indicators corresponding to the four dimensions of flexicurity identified by the Commission (COM(2007)359) ¿Lifelong Learning (LLL), ¿Active Labour Market Policies (ALMP), ¿Modern Social Security Systems (MSS) and ¿Flexible and Reliable Contractual Arrangements (FCA). This project represents a significant step forward with respect to previous analyses of flexicurity, in many respects: Comprehensiveness, Soundness and transparency of statistical methodology used, Solid theoretical framework on flexicurity, Policy relevance: possibility to replicate the exercise for policy monitoring, Robustness of results is extensively assessedJRC.DG.G.9-Econometrics and applied statistic

Towards a set of composite indicators on Flexicurity: the Indicator on Flexible and Reliable Contractual Arrangement

As a fourth and last step in the process of construction of a set of composite indicators on flexicurity within a joint DG EMPL-JRC project, this paper presents a composite indicator on Flexible and Reliable Contractual Arrangements (FCA), i.e. one of the four dimensions of flexicurity identified by the Commission (see COM(2007) 359). The indicator is based on 19 basic indicators and three sub-dimensions, i.e. i) Regulations on dismissals and use of flexible contractual forms - external flexibility; ii) Flexibility of working time - internal flexibility; iii) Flexibility of work organisation to help combine work and family responsibilities ¿ work-life balance combination flexibility. The indicator covers a four years period (2005 to 2008). The large set of indicators included, going well beyond the strictness of employment protection legislation whereby labour market flexibility is often measured, makes this exercise broader and more comprehensive than any previous attempt to characterise the flexibility dimension within a holistic attempt to measure flexicurity. All indicators used are based on institutional EU-level data sources. Results point to considerable heterogeneity in FCA across the EU, although Member States are not always grouped across well defined geographical clusters often mentioned in relevant literature (e.g. Southern, Anglo-Saxon etc.). The indicator's country ranking is quite stable over time, in particular in the years 2006-2008, while significant differences can be observed between 2005, on the one hand, and 2006-2008, on the other hand. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses have been performed in order to test the robustness of the Composite Indicator. Those were based on 12000 different simulated scenarios, generated by considering different options with respect to standardization methods, weighting scheme, aggregation rules and the inclusion/exclusion of basic indicators. Results show that the composite indicator's scores and rankings are overall robust, albeit with some variability mainly due to imputation of missing data and low correlation among basic indicators. On average, ranking variability is higher than in the Life Long Learning and Modern Social Security composite indicators, but lower than in the Active Labour Market Policies one, reflecting the varying presence of missing data.JRC.DG.G.9-Econometrics and applied statistic

Towards a set of composite indicators on Flexicurity: the Indicator on Modern Social Security Systems

As a third step in the process of construction of a set of composite indicators on flexicurity within a joint DG EMPL-JRC project, this paper presents an attempt to calculate a Composite Indicator on Modern Social Security System, which is one of the main four dimensions of flexicurity according to relevant Commission policy documents (see COM(2007) 359). The dimension of Modern Social Security System is captured through three different indicators: 4. the main indicator, which is based on 20 basic indicators and covers the three year period from 2005 to 2007, 5. a first additional indicator, based on 17 basic indicators and covering only 2004, 6. a second additional indicator built on 24 basic indicators and covering only 2007. All indicators used are based on three different sources. Results point to a heterogeneous Europe, with an overall good performance of Continental countries, and less favourable scores for Mediterranean and Eastern Member States. The indicator's country ranking is quite stable over the period considered with a few changes from one year to another. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses have been performed in order to test the robustness of the Composite Indicator. Those were based on 29400 different simulated scenarios for the main indicator, 25200 different scenarios for the 2004 indicator and 35000 simulated scenarios for the 2007 indicator, generated by considering different options with respect to standardization methods, weighting scheme, aggregation rules and the inclusion/exclusion of basic indicators. Results show that the composite indicator's scores and rankings are overall robust over the period, although some variability is present in each year. This is mainly due to the imputation of missing data. On average, countries record a higher ranking variability with respect to the Life Long Learning Composite indicator, but a lower one compared to the index on Active Labour Market Policies. This is due to the varying presence of missing data. However, the MSS index is quite robust compared to similar indicators developed in the literature.JRC.G.9-Econometrics and applied statistic

The characterization of Active Citizenship in Europe

Facilitating Active citizenship is one of the European Commission's strategies for increasing social cohesion and reducing the democratic deficit across Europe within the context of the wider Lisbon process. In this context, this report provides an evidence base for policy development, identifying the socio-demographic characteristics and determinants of active citizens and those who for one reason or another participate much less. The report provides a detailed identikit of the active citizen from 2002 across 14 European countries Austrian, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden (the complete dataset available for this research is only available for the majority of old member states of the European Union and European Economic Area).JRC.G.9-Econometrics and applied statistic

How will the COVID-19 crisis affect existing gender divides in Europe?

The present report is a first attempt to assess potential consequences of the covid-19 outbreak on women and on gender equality in Europe. The report was produced in April 2020, with the aim of informing policy making about the possible impacts of the crisis. Timing does not allow for reporting about actual impacts, as there is hardly any data available on the topic yet. Instead, this work provides an overview of the status quo in some relevant aspects of gender inequalities before the crisis and makes informed predictions on what is likely to happen.JRC.I.1-Monitoring, Indicators & Impact Evaluatio

The Consumer Empowerment Index

The 2007-2013 EU Consumer Policy Strategy emphasizes the importance of a better understanding of how consumers behave and sets as a main objective “to empower EU consumers”. A thorough knowledge of the capacities, information and assertiveness of consumers is considered crucial for being able to design and develop policies for consumer protection. Using the special Eurobarometer Survey n. 342, the DG Joint Research Center (together with DG Health and Consumers) constructed a composite measure of consumer empowerment encompassing the plurality of aspects implied by the EU policy Strategy. The resulting Consumer Empowerment Index describes consumer empowerment along three main dimensions: Consumer skills, Awareness of consumer legislation and Consumer engagement. The Index covers all 27 European countries plus Iceland and Norway. This report illustrates the different steps on the construction of the Index: the quantification of survey questions, the univariate and multivariate analysis of the dataset, the definition of an operational framework as well the selection of weights. Robustness analysis against alternative methodological choices is included. The relationship between socio economic characteristics of respondents and their level of empowerment is also presented with the aim of characterising the most crucial socio-economic determinants of empowerment and foster the debate on consumer protection.JRC.DG.G.3-Econometrics and applied statistic

Indicators for Lisbon post-2010 - business as usual?

This paper looks at the ongoing debate within the European Commission on the EU 2020 strategy and in particular to the potential role of statistics-based knowledge in the strategy , and takes partly inspiration from a reflection on the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs EU 2020 in the framework of the implementation of the European economic recovery plan. We highlight three shortcomings in the present (pre-EU 2020) use of statistical indicators which the present debate does not seem to address and which hence risk being perpetuated in their EU 2020 formulation: - The paradox of the coexistence within the same European Commission of two holistic frameworks: the Structural Indicators and the Sustainable Development Indicators. One does not understand which of these two systems is taken to measure the overall policy performance of the Commission. The resulting dualism ¿ in the opinion of the authors - does not help the communication policy of the European Commission. - A communication issue whereby the Lisbon strategy and its offspring EU 2020 are not communicated (Lisbon is to the average citizen the capital of Portugal) and are especially not communicated in relation to existing statistical indicators of good quality, against the opinion of academicians that transparency and accountability based on sound statistics favour democracy and participation and may be useful against citizens¿ and voters¿ apathy. - The paradox that EU policy and its communication is mostly economic -- the financial crisis (the ¿crunch¿) and its management in relation to the health of public finances, and environmental (global change, carbon emission, post Copenhagen), and less to an EU social agenda. There is little emphasis in EU policy and communication on the challenge of inequality which might impact adversely on democratic participation and values. We illustrate the reasons that lead us to see these points as problematic and offer suggestions on how these should be tackled. Without a change of course on these three challenges the debate on the selection of new indicators will very much risk being and internal European Commission business as usual.JRC.DG.G.9-Econometrics and applied statistic

The resilience of EU Member States to the financial and economic crisis What are the characteristics of resilient behaviour?

This study presents an empirical analysis of the resilience of European countries to the financial and economic crisis that started in 2007. The analysis addresses the following questions: Which countries showed a resilient behaviour during and after the crisis? Is resilience related only to the economic dimension? Has any of the EU countries been able to use the crisis as an opportunity and 'bounce forward'? Is it possible to identify any particular country characteristics linked to resilience? The analysis is based on the JRC conceptual framework for resilience (Manca et al., 2017) which places at its core the wellbeing of individuals, thus going beyond the merely economic growth perspective. The study carefully selects a number of key economic and social variables that aim to capture the resilience capacities of our society. Resilience is measured by investigating the dynamic response of these variables to the crisis in the short and medium run. In particular, we define four resilience indicators: the impact of the crisis, the recovery, the medium-run, and the ‘bouncing forward’. Results from a narrow exercise focusing on macroeconomic and financial variables confirm the validity of the proposed measurement approach: Germany appears to be among the most resilient countries; Ireland, after having been severely hit, shows a good absorptive capacity; Italy seems to be still struggling with the recovery, while Greece remains the most affected. After measuring resilience, we identify underlying country characteristics that may be associated with resilient behaviour. As such, these could indicate entry points for policies to increase countries' resilience to economic and financial shocks.JRC.B.1-Finance and Econom