WeSISpedia - User contributions [en]

Type of employment law

2020-12-09T15:04:59Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = String
|scale = Multinomial
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>Categories: employment law types (see below) </li>
</ul>
|techname = labor_emplaw_typ
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Type of employment law
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Standard-setting function]]</li>
<li>[[Privileging function]]</li>
<li>[[Equalising function]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This indicator informs about the type of employment law a country has in a given year. It is based on the SPE typology (see Dingeldey et al. 2020) that categorises countries according to the standard-setting (S), privileging (P) and equalising (E) function of their individual labour law. The indicator differentiates between the 8 ideal types "laissez-faire" (spe), "elitist" (sPe), "market egalitarian" (spE), "individualising" (sPE), "proto-socialist" (Spe), "paternalist" (SPe), "universalist" (SpE), and "ordre public social" (SPE), types that are more (1st dregree) or less (2nd degree) related to ideal types, and a middle category; capital letters in the brackets symbolise strong legislation, small letters nor or weak legislation.

|codingrules = The measures are based on leximetric indicators of the CBR-LRI (Adams et al. 2017) and Worlds of Labour (WoL) datasets (for a detailed measurement concept, see Dingeldey et al. 2020). To measure the standard-setting, privileging and equalising function, we calculated three indices and obtained a dashboard instrument to identify SPE types of employment law. Following the measurement concepts described above, we chose a convenient method of weighting and index calculation. We used the mean of all indicators of one aspect, again the mean of all aspects of one dimension, and again the mean of all dimensions of one function, thereby assigning equal weights to each aspect or dimension, and thus equal weights to all indicators of one aspect or dimension. However, we made one adjustment: because in contrast to the other dimensions, the dimensions working time, dismissal protection, and selectivity showed empirical maxima below “1” over the period of 43 years (0.87, 0.95, and 0.72 respectively), we normalised their scales, i.e. divided them by their empirical maximum. This decision was based on the considerations that the theoretically derived scales in these cases might be too strict and the highest observed value represents the highest empirically achievable value, which would result in a stronger weighting of the other dimensions inherent to a measurement error. We are aware that this is a time-varying transformation that might cause problems in the future; i.e. future maxima of the three dimensions might increase, although the likelihood is rather small. The correlation between the three indices above the whole sample are 0.05 for S and P, 0.37 for S and E, and 0.13 for P and E. The clear positive relation especially between S and E leaves enough unexplained variance to consider them as separate concepts.

To categorise countries according to the SPE typology, we tried various approaches and examined their results with great scrutiny. We decided for the method that according to legal content analysis bore the best outcome. First, we established two thresholds that differentiated between low, medium and high levels of each function. We chose relative thresholds that fitted the distribution of each function better than absolute ones, but avoided the problem of time variation by anchoring them in specific years to allow comparisons across different samples and periods. As anchors we selected years when the respective functions of labour law were more or less fully developed, i.e. the year 1980 for S and P, and the year 2006 for E. The middle category of each function was defined as the standard deviation around the mean of the anchor year which captures around 38.2% of the distribution, while “low” covers all values below the mean minus half of the standard deviation, and “high” all values above the mean plus half of the standard deviation (for S: mean=0.49, lower threshold=0.41, upper threshold=.57; for P: mean=0.29, lower threshold=0.21, upper threshold=0.36; for E: mean=0.51, lower threshold=0.41, upper threshold=0.62). Based on this categorisation, ideal SPE types are countries where all three functions showed low or high levels. Furthermore, we identified relatives of ideal types, i.e. settings that resembled ideal types. First-degree relatives are countries where two of three functions are either high or low, and the third function ranges in the middle, but shows a tendency towards being high or low according to its location above or below the mean. In contrast, second-degree relatives are countries where one function is clearly lowly or highly developed, and the other two functions are in the middle, but show respective tendencies. Countries, where all three functions are in the middle category, make up a middle type (see Dingeldey et al. FORTHCOMING).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. 2020. "Measuring Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." ''SOCIUM SFB 1342 Working Papers No. 5'', Bremen: SOCIUM, University of Bremen. [https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf]
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. FORTHCOMING. "Worlds of Labour: Introducing the SPE Typology as a Measure of Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." Manuscript under review at the ''Industrial Law Journal''.
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Own coding (WoL; Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger) </li>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Type of employment law

2020-12-09T15:03:35Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = String
|scale = Multinomial
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>Categories: employment law types (see below) </li>
</ul>
|techname = labor_emplaw_typ
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Type of employment law
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Standard-setting function]]</li>
<li>[[Privileging function]]</li>
<li>[[Equalising function]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This indicator informs about the type of employment law a country has in a given year. It is based on the SPE typology (see Dingeldey et al. 2020) that categorises countries according to the standard-setting (S), privileging (P) and equalising (E) function of their individual labour law. The indicator differentiates between the 8 ideal types "laissez-faire" (spe), "elitist" (sPe), "market egalitarian" (spE), "individualising" (sPE), "proto-socialist" (Spe), "paternalist" (SPe), "universalist" (SpE), and "ordre public social" (SPE), types that are more (1st dregree) or less (2nd degree) related to ideal types, and a middle category; capital letters in the brackets symbolise strong legislation, small letters nor or weak legislation.

|codingrules = The measures are based on leximetric indicators of the CBR-LRI (Adams et al. 2016) and WoL datasets (for a detailed measurement concept, see Dingeldey et al. 2020). To measure the standard-setting, privileging and equalising function, we calculated three indices and obtained a dashboard instrument to identify SPE types of employment law. Following the measurement concepts described above, we chose a convenient method of weighting and index calculation. We used the mean of all indicators of one aspect, again the mean of all aspects of one dimension, and again the mean of all dimensions of one function, thereby assigning equal weights to each aspect or dimension, and thus equal weights to all indicators of one aspect or dimension. However, we made one adjustment: because in contrast to the other dimensions, the dimensions working time, dismissal protection, and selectivity showed empirical maxima below “1” over the period of 43 years (0.87, 0.95, and 0.72 respectively), we normalised their scales, i.e. divided them by their empirical maximum. This decision was based on the considerations that the theoretically derived scales in these cases might be too strict and the highest observed value represents the highest empirically achievable value, which would result in a stronger weighting of the other dimensions inherent to a measurement error. We are aware that this is a time-varying transformation that might cause problems in the future; i.e. future maxima of the three dimensions might increase, although the likelihood is rather small. The correlation between the three indices above the whole sample are 0.05 for S and P, 0.37 for S and E, and 0.13 for P and E. The clear positive relation especially between S and E leaves enough unexplained variance to consider them as separate concepts.

To categorise countries according to the SPE typology, we tried various approaches and examined their results with great scrutiny. We decided for the method that according to legal content analysis bore the best outcome. First, we established two thresholds that differentiated between low, medium and high levels of each function. We chose relative thresholds that fitted the distribution of each function better than absolute ones, but avoided the problem of time variation by anchoring them in specific years to allow comparisons across different samples and periods. As anchors we selected years when the respective functions of labour law were more or less fully developed, i.e. the year 1980 for S and P, and the year 2006 for E. The middle category of each function was defined as the standard deviation around the mean of the anchor year which captures around 38.2% of the distribution, while “low” covers all values below the mean minus half of the standard deviation, and “high” all values above the mean plus half of the standard deviation (for S: mean=0.49, lower threshold=0.41, upper threshold=.57; for P: mean=0.29, lower threshold=0.21, upper threshold=0.36; for E: mean=0.51, lower threshold=0.41, upper threshold=0.62). Based on this categorisation, ideal SPE types are countries where all three functions showed low or high levels. Furthermore, we identified relatives of ideal types, i.e. settings that resembled ideal types. First-degree relatives are countries where two of three functions are either high or low, and the third function ranges in the middle, but shows a tendency towards being high or low according to its location above or below the mean. In contrast, second-degree relatives are countries where one function is clearly lowly or highly developed, and the other two functions are in the middle, but show respective tendencies. Countries, where all three functions are in the middle category, make up a middle type (see Dingeldey et al. FORTHCOMING).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. 2020. "Measuring Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." ''SOCIUM SFB 1342 Working Papers No. 5'', Bremen: SOCIUM, University of Bremen. [https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf]
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. FORTHCOMING. "Worlds of Labour: Introducing the SPE Typology as a Measure of Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." Manuscript under review at the ''Industrial Law Journal''.
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Own coding (WoL; Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger) </li>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Type of employment law

2020-12-09T15:02:33Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = String
|scale = Multinomial
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>Categories: employment law types (see below) </li>
</ul>
|techname = labor_emplaw_typ
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Type of employment law
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Standard-setting function]]</li>
<li>[[Privileging function]]</li>
<li>[[Equalising function]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This indicator informs about the type of employment law a country has in a given year. It is based on the SPE typology (see Dingeldey et al. 2020) that categorises countries according to the standard-setting (S), privileging (P) and equalising (E) function of their individual labour law. The indicator differentiates between the 8 ideal types "laissez-faire" (spe), "elitist" (sPe), "market egalitarian" (spE), "individualising" (sPE), "proto-socialist" (Spe), "paternalist" (SPe), "universalist" (SpE), and "ordre public social" (SPE), types that are more (1st dregree) or less (2nd degree) related to ideal types, and a middle category; capital letters in the brackets symbolise strong legislation, small letters nor or weak legislation.

|codingrules = The measures are based on leximetric indicators of the CBR-LRI and WoL datasets (for a detailed measurement concept, see Dingeldey et al. 2020). To measure the standard-setting, privileging and equalising function, we calculated three indices and obtained a dashboard instrument to identify SPE types of employment law. Following the measurement concepts described above, we chose a convenient method of weighting and index calculation. We used the mean of all indicators of one aspect, again the mean of all aspects of one dimension, and again the mean of all dimensions of one function, thereby assigning equal weights to each aspect or dimension, and thus equal weights to all indicators of one aspect or dimension. However, we made one adjustment: because in contrast to the other dimensions, the dimensions working time, dismissal protection, and selectivity showed empirical maxima below “1” over the period of 43 years (0.87, 0.95, and 0.72 respectively), we normalised their scales, i.e. divided them by their empirical maximum. This decision was based on the considerations that the theoretically derived scales in these cases might be too strict and the highest observed value represents the highest empirically achievable value, which would result in a stronger weighting of the other dimensions inherent to a measurement error. We are aware that this is a time-varying transformation that might cause problems in the future; i.e. future maxima of the three dimensions might increase, although the likelihood is rather small. The correlation between the three indices above the whole sample are 0.05 for S and P, 0.37 for S and E, and 0.13 for P and E. The clear positive relation especially between S and E leaves enough unexplained variance to consider them as separate concepts.

To categorise countries according to the SPE typology, we tried various approaches and examined their results with great scrutiny. We decided for the method that according to legal content analysis bore the best outcome. First, we established two thresholds that differentiated between low, medium and high levels of each function. We chose relative thresholds that fitted the distribution of each function better than absolute ones, but avoided the problem of time variation by anchoring them in specific years to allow comparisons across different samples and periods. As anchors we selected years when the respective functions of labour law were more or less fully developed, i.e. the year 1980 for S and P, and the year 2006 for E. The middle category of each function was defined as the standard deviation around the mean of the anchor year which captures around 38.2% of the distribution, while “low” covers all values below the mean minus half of the standard deviation, and “high” all values above the mean plus half of the standard deviation (for S: mean=0.49, lower threshold=0.41, upper threshold=.57; for P: mean=0.29, lower threshold=0.21, upper threshold=0.36; for E: mean=0.51, lower threshold=0.41, upper threshold=0.62). Based on this categorisation, ideal SPE types are countries where all three functions showed low or high levels. Furthermore, we identified relatives of ideal types, i.e. settings that resembled ideal types. First-degree relatives are countries where two of three functions are either high or low, and the third function ranges in the middle, but shows a tendency towards being high or low according to its location above or below the mean. In contrast, second-degree relatives are countries where one function is clearly lowly or highly developed, and the other two functions are in the middle, but show respective tendencies. Countries, where all three functions are in the middle category, make up a middle type (see Dingeldey et al. FORTHCOMING).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. 2020. "Measuring Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." ''SOCIUM SFB 1342 Working Papers No. 5'', Bremen: SOCIUM, University of Bremen. [https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf]
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. FORTHCOMING. "Worlds of Labour: Introducing the SPE Typology as a Measure of Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." Manuscript under review at the ''Industrial Law Journal''.
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Own coding (WoL; Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger) </li>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Type of employment law

2020-12-09T14:59:22Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = String
|scale = Multinomial
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>Categories: employment law types (see below) </li>
</ul>
|techname = labor_emplaw_typ
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Type of employment law
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Standard-setting function]]</li>
<li>[[Privileging function]]</li>
<li>[[Equalising function]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This indicator informs about the type of employment law a country has in a given year. It is based on the SPE typology (see Dingeldey et al. 2020) that categorises countries according to the standard-setting (S), privileging (P) and equalising (E) function of their individual labour law. The indicator differentiates between the 8 ideal types "laissez-faire" (spe), "elitist" (sPe), "market egalitarian" (spE), "individualising" (sPE), "proto-socialist" (Spe), "paternalist" (SPe), "universalist" (SpE), and "ordre public social" (SPE), types that are more (1st dregree) or less (2nd degree) related to ideal types, and a middle category; capital letters in the brackets symbolise strong legislation, small letters nor or weak legislation.

|codingrules = The measures are based on leximetric indicators of the CBR-LRI and WoL datasets (for a detailed measurement concept, see Dingeldey et al. 2020). To measure the standard-setting, privileging and equalising function, we calculated three indices and obtained a dashboard instrument to identify SPE types of employment law. Following the measurement concepts described above, we chose a convenient method of weighting and index calculation. We used the mean of all indicators of one aspect, again the mean of all as-pects of one dimension, and again the mean of all dimensions of one function, thereby assign-ing equal weights to each aspect or dimension, and thus equal weights to all indicators of one aspect or dimension. However, we made one adjustment: because in contrast to the other dimensions, the dimensions working time, dismissal protection, and selectivity showed empirical maxima below “1” over the period of 43 years (0.87, 0.95, and 0.72 respectively), we normalised their scales, i.e. divided them by their empirical maximum. This decision was based on the considerations that the theoretically derived scales in these cases might be too strict and the highest observed value represents the highest empirically achievable value, which would result in a stronger weighting of the other dimensions inherent to a measurement error. We are aware that this is a time-varying transformation that might cause problems in the future; i.e. future maxima of the three dimensions might increase, although the likelihood is rather small. The correlation between the three indices above the whole sample are 0.05 for S and P, 0.37 for S and E, and 0.13 for P and E. The clear positive relation especially between S and E leaves enough unexplained variance to consider them as separate concepts.

To categorise countries according to the SPE typology, we tried various approaches and examined their results with great scrutiny. We decided for the method that according to legal con-tent analysis bore the best outcome. First, we established two thresholds that differentiated between low, medium and high levels of each function. We chose relative thresholds that fit-ted the distribution of each function better than absolute ones, but avoided the problem of time variation by anchoring them in specific years to allow comparisons across different samples and periods. As anchors we selected years when the respective functions of labour law were more or less fully developed, i.e. the year 1980 for S and P, and the year 2006 for E. The middle category of each function was defined as the standard deviation around the mean of the anchor year which captures around 38.2% of the distribution, while “low” covers all values below the mean minus half of the standard deviation, and “high” all values above the mean plus half of the standard deviation (for S: mean=0.49, lower threshold=0.41, upper threshold=.57; for P: mean=0.29, lower threshold=0.21, upper threshold=0.36; for E: mean=0.51, lower threshold=0.41, upper threshold=0.62). Based on this categorisation, ideal SPE types are countries where all three functions showed low or high levels. Furthermore, we identified rela-tives of ideal types, i.e. settings that resembled ideal types. First-degree relatives are countries where two of three functions are either high or low, and the third function ranges in the middle, but shows a tendency towards being high or low according to its location above or below the mean. In contrast, second-degree relatives are countries where one function is clearly lowly or highly developed, and the other two functions are in the middle, but show respective tendencies. Countries, where all three functions are in the middle category, make up a middle type (see Dingeldey et al. FORTHCOMING).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. 2020. "Measuring Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." ''SOCIUM SFB 1342 Working Papers No. 5'', Bremen: SOCIUM, University of Bremen. [https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf]
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. FORTHCOMING. "Worlds of Labour: Introducing the SPE Typology as a Measure of Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." Manuscript under review at the ''Industrial Law Journal''.
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Own coding (WoL; Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger) </li>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Type of employment law

2020-12-09T14:54:40Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = String |scale = Multinomial |valuelabels = <ul> <li>Categories: employment law types (see below) </li> </ul> |techname = labor_emplaw_typ |category =..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = String
|scale = Multinomial
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>Categories: employment law types (see below) </li>
</ul>
|techname = labor_emplaw_typ
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Type of employment law
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Standard-setting function]]</li>
<li>[[Privileging function]]</li>
<li>[[Equalising function]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This indicator informs about the type of employment law a country has in a given year. It is based on the SPE typology (see Dingeldey et al. 2020) that categorises countries according to the standard-setting (S), privileging (P) and equalising (E) function of their individual labour law. The indicator differentiates between the 8 ideal types "laissez-faire" (spe), "elitist" (sPe), "market egalitarian" (spE), "individualising" (sPE), "proto-socialist" (Spe), "paternalist" (SPe), "universalist" (SpE), and "ordre public social" (SPE), types that are more (1st dregree) or less (2nd degree) related to ideal types, and a middle category; capital letters in the brackets symbolise strong legislation, small letters nor or weak legislation.

|codingrules = The measures are based on leximetric indicators of the CBR-LRI and WoL datasets (for a detailed measurement concept, see Dingeldey et al. 2020). To measure the standard-setting, privileging and equalising function, we calculated three indices and obtained a dashboard instrument to identify SPE types of employment law. Following the measurement concepts described above, we chose a convenient method of weighting and index calculation. We used the mean of all indicators of one aspect, again the mean of all as-pects of one dimension, and again the mean of all dimensions of one function, thereby assign-ing equal weights to each aspect or dimension, and thus equal weights to all indicators of one aspect or dimension. However, we made one adjustment: because in contrast to the other di-mensions, the dimensions working time, dismissal protection, and selectivity showed empirical maxima below “1” over the period of 43 years (0.87, 0.95, and 0.72 respectively), we normalised their scales, i.e. divided them by their empirical maximum. This decision was based on the considerations that the theoretically derived scales in these cases might be too strict and the highest observed value represents the highest empirically achievable value, which would result in a stronger weighting of the other dimensions inherent to a measurement error. We are aware that this is a time-varying transformation that might cause problems in the future; i.e. future maxima of the three dimensions might increase, although the likelihood is rather small. The correlation between the three indices above the whole sample are 0.05 for S and P, 0.37 for S and E, and 0.13 for P and E. The clear positive relation especially between S and E leaves enough unexplained variance to consider them as separate concepts. To categorise countries according to the SPE typology, we tried various approaches and exam-ined their results with great scrutiny. We decided for the method that according to legal con-tent analysis bore the best outcome. First, we established two thresholds that differentiated between low, medium and high levels of each function. We chose relative thresholds that fit-ted the distribution of each function better than absolute ones, but avoided the problem of time variation by anchoring them in specific years to allow comparisons across different sam-ples and periods. As anchors we selected years when the respective functions of labour law were more or less fully developed, i.e. the year 1980 for S and P, and the year 2006 for E. The middle category of each function was defined as the standard deviation around the mean of the anchor year which captures around 38.2% of the distribution, while “low” covers all values below the mean minus half of the standard deviation, and “high” all values above the mean plus half of the standard deviation (for S: mean=0.49, lower threshold=0.41, upper thresh-old=.57; for P: mean=0.29, lower threshold=0.21, upper threshold=0.36; for E: mean=0.51, lower threshold=0.41, upper threshold=0.62). Based on this categorisation, ideal SPE types are countries where all three functions showed low or high levels. Furthermore, we identified rela-tives of ideal types, i.e. settings that resembled ideal types. First-degree relatives are countries where two of three functions are either high or low, and the third function ranges in the mid-dle, but shows a tendency towards being high or low according to its location above or below the mean. In contrast, second-degree relatives are countries where one function is clearly lowly or highly developed, and the other two functions are in the middle, but show respective tendencies. Countries, where all three functions are in the middle category, make up a middle type (see Dingeldey et al. FORTHCOMING).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. 2020. "Measuring Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." ''SOCIUM SFB 1342 Working Papers No. 5'', Bremen: SOCIUM, University of Bremen. [https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf]
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. FORTHCOMING. "Worlds of Labour: Introducing the SPE Typology as a Measure of Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." Manuscript under review at the ''Industrial Law Journal''.
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Own coding (WoL; Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger) </li>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Labour and labour market

2020-12-09T14:03:18Z

Jgerlitz:

{|class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
! Indicator name*
! Subcategory I
! Subcategory II
! Subcategory III
! Technical name*
! Scale*
! Short description
|-
| [[Legally mandated notice period]]
| Standard-setting
| Dismissal protection
| Duration
| labor_dis_not_per
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]
| Standard-setting
| Dismissal protection
| Ammount
| labor_red_com_amm
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal]]
| Privileging
| Selectivity
| Duration
| labor_min_qua_per
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Law imposes procedural constraints on dismissal]]
| Standard-setting
| Dismissal protection
| Procedure
| labor_pro_dis_con
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Law imposes substantive constraints on dismissal]]
| Standard-setting
| Dismissal protection
| Procedure
| labor_sub_dis_con
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Reinstatement normal remedy for unfair dismissal]]
| Standard-setting
| Dismissal protection
| Procedure
| labor_reinstate
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Third body notification of dismissal]]
| Standard-setting
| Dismissal protection
| Procedure
| labor_thi_bod_not
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Redundancy selection]]
| Privileging
| Seniority
| Procedure
| labor_redund_select
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Priority in re-employment]]
| Privileging
| Seniority
| Procedure
| labor_pri_re_emp
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Annual leave entitlements]]
| Standard-setting
| Working time restriction
| Duration
| labor_ann_lea_ent
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Public holiday entitlements]]
| Standard-setting
| Working time restriction
| Duration
| labor_pub_hol_ent
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Overtime premia]]
| Standard-setting
| Working time restriction
| Ammount
| labor_overt_premia
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Weekend working]]
| Standard-setting
| Working time restriction
| Ammount
| labor_weekend_work
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Limits to overtime working]]
| Standard-setting
| Working time restriction
| Duration
| labor_overt_work
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Duration of the normal working week]]
| Standard-setting
| Working time restriction
| Duration
| labor_workweek
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Maximum daily working time]]
| Standard-setting
| Working time restriction
| Duration
| labor_workday
| Metric
|
|-
| [[The law determines the legal status of the worker]]
| Privileging
| Selectivity
| Definition
| labor_work_def
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment]]
| Equalizing
| Flexibilization
| Right
| labor_ptemp_et
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Dismissing costs for part-time workers is proportional]]
| Equalizing
| Flexibilization
| Right
| labor_pt_dis_cost
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Fixed-term contracts are allowed only for limited duration]]
| Equalizing
| Flexibilization
| Procedure
| labor_fx_limit
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Fixed-term workers have the right to equal treatment]]
| Equalizing
| Flexibilization
| Right
| labor_fxemp_et
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Maximum duration of fixed-term contracts]]
| Equalizing
| Flexibilization
| Duration
| labor_max_fx_dur
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled]]
| Equalizing
| Flexibilization
| Procedure
| labor_awork_con
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Agency workers have the right to equal treatment]]
| Equalizing
| Flexibilization
| Right
| labor_awork_et
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Legally mandated notice period increases with seniority]]
| Privileging
| Seniority
| Procedure
| labor_notped_sen
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Legally mandated severance compensation increases with seniority]]
| Privileging
| Seniority
| Procedure
| labor_redcomp_sen
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Seniority is a decisive redundancy selection criterion ]]
| Privileging
| Seniority
| Procedure
| labor_redsec_sen
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Dismissal protection depends on size of enterprise ]]
| Privileging
| Selectivity
| Procedure
| labor_dispro_size
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Law provides for equal access to employment for men and women ]]
| Equalizing
| Discrimination
| Right
| labor_eqacc_gend
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Law provides regulation of positive discrimination of women ]]
| Equalizing
| Discrimination
| Procedure
| labor_posdis_gend
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Law provides for equal access to employment concerning ethnicity/race ]]
| Equalizing
| Discrimination
| Right
| labor_eqacc_ethn
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Law provides regulation of positive discrimination of ethnicity/race ]]
| Equalizing
| Discrimination
| Procedure
| labor_posdis_ethn
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Equal pay for equal work is legally provided for ]]
| Equalizing
| Discrimination
| Right
| labor_eqpay
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Law provides for equal working conditions for men and women ]]
| Equalizing
| Discrimination
| Right
| labor_eqwc_gend
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Law provides for equal working conditions concerning ethnicity/race ]]
| Equalizing
| Discrimination
| Right
| labor_eqwc_ethn
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Employees enjoy right to a general minimum wage ]]
| Equalizing
| Discrimination
| Right
| labor_minwage
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Right to unionisation ]]
| Collective rights
| Employee representation
| Right
| labor_union
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Right to collective bargaining ]]
| Collective rights
| Employee representation
| Right
| labor_coll_barg
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Duty to bargain ]]
| Collective rights
| Employee representation
| Right
| labor_duty_barg
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Extension of collective agreements ]]
| Collective rights
| Employee representation
| Right
| labor_exten_barg
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Closed shops ]]
| Collective rights
| Employee representation
| Right
| labor_closedshop
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Codetermination board membership ]]
| Collective rights
| Employee representation
| Right
| labor_codeterm_bmem
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Codetermination and information/consultation of workers ]]
| Collective rights
| Employee representation
| Right
| labor_codeterm_info
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Unofficial industrial action ]]
| Collective rights
| Industrial action
| Right
| labor_unoff_indact
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Political industrial action ]]
| Collective rights
| Industrial action
| Right
| labor_polit_indact
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Secondary industrial action ]]
| Collective rights
| Industrial action
| Right
| labor_second_indact
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Lockouts ]]
| Collective rights
| Industrial action
| Right
| labor_lockouts
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Right to industrial action ]]
| Collective rights
| Industrial action
| Right
| labor_right_indact
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Waiting period prior to industrial action ]]
| Collective rights
| Industrial action
| Right
| labor_wait_indact
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Peace obligation ]]
| Collective rights
| Industrial action
| Right
| labor_peace_oblig
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Compulsory conciliation or arbitration ]]
| Collective rights
| Industrial action
| Right
| labor_comp_conc
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Replacement of striking workers ]]
| Collective rights
| Industrial action
| Right
| labor_replac_strike
| Metric
|
|-
| [[Type of employment law]]
| Labour Law
| Individual labour law
| Labour law regime
| labor_emplaw_typ
| Multinomial
|
|-
| [[Work-injury. Introduction year of first federal law. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Introduction
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw
| Ordinal
| Not counting state employees (military or civil servants)
|-
| [[Work-injury. First law program type. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Program type
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_programtype
| Categorical
|
|-
| [[Work-injury. First law cash benefits. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Benefits
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_benefit_cash
| Binary
|
|-
| [[Work-injury. First law in-kind health benefits. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Benefits
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_benefit_inkind_health
| Binary
| Any health services provided by the work-injury law
|-
| [[Work-injury. First law in-kind other benefits. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Benefits
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_benefit_inkind_other
| Binary
| Any benefit that is not cash or health, e.g., funerals
|-
| [[Work-injury. First law benefit duration and amount. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Benefits
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_duration
| String
| Written description of the maximum amount and duration
|-
| [[Work-injury. First law family benefit. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Benefits
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_benefit_family
| Binary
| Any provision for family in case of death or injury
|-
| [[Work-injury. First law group differences. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Inequality
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_groupdiff
| String
| Any groups excluded by race, ethnicity, place of birth, language, religion, gender, or other non-occupation-related group differences
|-
| [[Work-injury. First law details. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
|
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_details
| String
| Notes on the first law. Important information that cannot be captured quantitatively
|-
| [[Work-injury. Civil servant first law introduction year. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_civilservants
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Work-injury. Civil servant first law coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_civilservants_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Work-injury. Civil servant first law full coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_civilservants_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* civil servants (*defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Work-injury. Military first law introduction year. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_military
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Work-injury. Military first law coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_military_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Work-injury. Military first law full coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_military_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* enlisted (*defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Work-injury. White-collar first law introduction year. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_whitecollar
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Work-injury. White-collar first law coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_whitecollar_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Work-injury. White-collar first law full coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_whitecollar_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* white-collar workers (*defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Work-injury. Blue-collar first law introduction year. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_bluecollar
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Work-injury. Blue-collar first law coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_bluecollar_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Work-injury. Blue-collar first law full coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_bluecollar_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* blue-collar industrial workers (*not counting agriculture; defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Work-injury. Farmers first law introduction year. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_farmers
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Work-injury. Farmers first law coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_farmers_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Work-injury. Farmers first law full coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_farmers_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* farmers (*own/manage own-farm; defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Work-injury. Self-employed first law introduction year. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_selfemp
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Work-injury. Self-employed first law coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_selfemp_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Work-injury. Self-employed first law full coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_selfemp_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* self-employed(*not counting farmers; defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Work-injury. Agricultural workers first law introduction year. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_agriworkers
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Work-injury. Agricultural workers first law coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_agriworkers_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Work-injury. Agricultural workers first law full coverage. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_agriworkers_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* agricultural workers (*not counting farmers; defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Work-injury. First-law according to US Social Security Administration. ]]
| Work-injury
| First law
| Introduction
| labor_workinjury_firstlaw_sspw
| Ordinal
| Not counting state employees (military or civil servants)
|-
| [[Unemployment. Introduction year of first federal law. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Introduction
| labor_unemp_firstlaw
| Ordinal
| Not counting state employees (military or civil servants)
|-
| [[Unemployment. First law program type. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Program type
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_programtype
| Categorical
|
|-
| [[Unemployment. First law benefit duration and amount. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Benefits
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_duration
| String
| Written description of the maximum amount and duration
|-
| [[Unemployment. First law family benefit. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Benefits
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_benefit_family
| Binary
| Any provision for family in case of death or injury
|-
| [[Unemployment. First law group differences. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Inequality
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_groupdiff
| String
| Any groups excluded by race, ethnicity, place of birth, language, religion, gender, or other non-occupation-related group differences
|-
| [[Unemployment. First law details. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
|
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_details
| String
| Notes on the first law. Important information that cannot be captured quantitatively
|-
| [[Unemployment. Civil servant first law introduction year. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_civilservants
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Unemployment. Civil servant first law coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_civilservants_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Unemployment. Civil servant first law full coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_civilservants_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* civil servants (*defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Unemployment. Military first law introduction year. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_military
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Unemployment. Military first law coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_military_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Unemployment. Military first law full coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_military_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* enlisted (*defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Unemployment. White-collar first law introduction year. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_whitecollar
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Unemployment. White-collar first law coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_whitecollar_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Unemployment. White-collar first law full coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_whitecollar_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* white-collar workers (*defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Unemployment. Blue-collar first law introduction year. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_bluecollar
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Unemployment. Blue-collar first law coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_bluecollar_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Unemployment. Blue-collar first law full coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_bluecollar_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* blue-collar industrial workers (*not counting agriculture; defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Unemployment. Farmers first law introduction year. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_farmers
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Unemployment. Farmers first law coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_farmers_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Unemployment. Farmers first law full coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_farmers_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* farmers (*own/manage own-farm; defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Unemployment. Self-employed first law introduction year. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_selfemp
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Unemployment. Self-employed first law coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_selfemp_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Unemployment. Self-employed first law full coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_selfemp_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* self-employed(*not counting farmers; defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|-
| [[Unemployment. Agricultural workers first law introduction year. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_agriworkers
| Ordinal
|
|-
| [[Unemployment. Agricultural workers first law coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_agriworkers_coverage
| String
| Which groups were covered
|-
| [[Unemployment. Agricultural workers first law full coverage. ]]
| Unemployment
| First law
| Occupational Groups
| labor_unemp_firstlaw_agriworkers_fullcoverage
| Ordinal
| Year of law first covering all* agricultural workers (*not counting farmers; defined as literally all, over 80% or all possible)
|}

Social structure

2020-09-08T13:23:42Z

Jgerlitz:

{|class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
!Indicator Name!!Subcategory I!!Subcategory II!!Subcategory III!!Technical name!!Scale!!Short description
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, male (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, female (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_15f||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, total (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_15t||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15-24, male (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_1524m||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15-24, female (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_1524f||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15-24, total (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_1524t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force participation rate, 15+, male (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Labour force participation||Rate||socstr_lfp_pop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force participation rate, 15+, female (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Labour force participation||Rate||socstr_lfp_pop_15f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force participation rate, 15+, total (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Labour force participation||Rate||socstr_lfp_pop_15t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with advanced education/total working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu3_wpop_t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with advanced education/female working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu3_wpop_f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with advanced education/male working-age population)]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu3_wpop_m||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with intermediate education/total working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu2_wpop_t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with intermediate education/female working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu2_wpop_f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with intermediate education/male working-age population)]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu2_wpop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with basic education/total working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu1_wpop_t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with basic education/female working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu1_wpop_f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with basic education/male working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu1_wpop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Atkinson Coefficient (epsilon=0.5)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_atkincoef_eps05||metric||
|-
|[[Atkinson Coefficient (epsilon=1)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_atkincoef_eps1||metric||
|-
|[[Gini Coefficient (LIS)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_coef_lis||metric||
|-
|[[Gini (at disposable income post taxes & transfers)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: S80/S20 disposable income quintile share]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_s80s20_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: P90/P10 disposable income decile ratio]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_p90p10_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: P90/P50 disposable income decile ratio]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_p90p50_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: P50/P10 disposable income decile ratio]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_p50p10_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[GINI index (World Bank estimate)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_ndx_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Gini Coefficient (WIID)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_coef_wiid4||metric||
|-
|[[Human Development Index]]||Human Development||Development indicator||Index value||socstr_hdi_undp||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Entire population]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratetpop_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Children (age 0-17)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratechild_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Working-age population (age 18-65)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratewap_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Retirement-age population (over 65)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratera_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap entire population]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgaptpop_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap at dollar 1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (%)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgap190_11_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap at dollar 3.20 a day (2011 PPP) (%)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgap320_11_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Urban poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of urban pop.)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_urbpovratio_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap at national poverty lines (%)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgapnat_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Rural poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of rural pop.)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_rurpovratio_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Gender Inequality Index]]||Social inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gdi_undp||metric||
|-
|[[Population, total]]||||||||socstr_pop_tot_unctad||metric||Absolute value of population based on UNCTAD statistics
|}

Social structure

2020-09-08T13:19:11Z

Jgerlitz:

{|class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
!Indicator Name!!Subcategory I!!Subcategory II!!Subcategory III!!Technical name!!Scale!!Short description
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, male (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, female (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_15f||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, total (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_15t||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15-24, male (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_1524m||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15-24, female (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_1524f||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15-24, total (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_1524t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force participation rate, 15+, male (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Labour force participation||Rate||socstr_lfp_pop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force participation rate, 15+, female (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Labour force participation||Rate||socstr_lfp_pop_15f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force participation rate, 15+, total (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Labour force participation||Rate||socstr_lfp_pop_15t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with advanced education/total working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu3_wpop_t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with advanced education/female working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu3_wpop_f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with advanced education/male working-age population)]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu3_wpop_m||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with intermediate education/total working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu2_wpop_t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with intermediate education/female working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu2_wpop_f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with intermediate education/male working-age population)]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu2_wpop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with basic education/total working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu1_wpop_t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with basic education/female working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu1_wpop_f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with basic education/male working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu1_wpop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Atkinson Coefficient (epsilon=0.5)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_atkincoef_eps05||metric||
|-
|[[Atkinson Coefficient (epsilon=1)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_atkincoef_eps1||metric||
|-
|[[Gini Coefficient]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_coef_lis||metric||
|-
|[[Gini(at disposable income post taxes & transfers)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: S80/S20 disposable income quintile share]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_s80s20_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: P90/P10 disposable income decile ratio]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_p90p10_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: P90/P50 disposable income decile ratio]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_p90p50_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: P50/P10 disposable income decile ratio]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_p50p10_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[GINI index (World Bank estimate)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_ndx_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Gini Coefficient]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_coef_wiid4||metric||
|-
|[[Human Development Index]]||Human Development||Development indicator||Index value||socstr_hdi_undp||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Entire population]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratetpop_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Children (age 0-17)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratechild_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Working-age population (age 18-65)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratewap_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Retirement-age population (over 65)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratera_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap entire population]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgaptpop_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap at dollar 1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (%)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgap190_11_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap at dollar 3.20 a day (2011 PPP) (%)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgap320_11_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Urban poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of urban pop.)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_urbpovratio_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap at national poverty lines (%)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgapnat_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Rural poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of rural pop.)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_rurpovratio_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Gender Inequality Index]]||Social inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gdi_undp||metric||
|-
|[[Population, total]]||||||||socstr_pop_tot_unctad||metric||Absolute value of population based on UNCTAD statistics
|}

Social structure

2020-08-12T14:47:30Z

Jgerlitz:

{|class="wikitable sortable" border="1"
!Indicator Name!!Subcategory I!!Subcategory II!!Subcategory III!!Technical name!!Scale!!Short description
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, male (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, female (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_15f||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, total (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_15t||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15-24, male (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_1524m||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15-24, female (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_1524f||metric||
|-
|[[Employment to population ratio, 15-24, total (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Employment||Rate||socstr_emp_pop_1524t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force participation rate, 15+, male (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Labour force participation||Rate||socstr_lfp_pop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force participation rate, 15+, female (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Labour force participation||Rate||socstr_lfp_pop_15f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force participation rate, 15+, total (national estimate)]]||Labour market participation||Labour force participation||Rate||socstr_lfp_pop_15t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with advanced education/total working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu3_wpop_t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with advanced education/female working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu3_wpop_f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with advanced education/male working-age population)]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu3_wpop_m||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with intermediate education/total working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu2_wpop_t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with intermediate education/female working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu2_wpop_f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with intermediate education/male working-age population)]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu2_wpop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with basic education/total working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu1_wpop_t||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with basic education/female working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu1_wpop_f||metric||
|-
|[[Labor force with basic education/male working-age population]]||Labour market participation||Education||Rate||socstr_lfpedu1_wpop_15m||metric||
|-
|[[Atkinson Coefficient (epsilon=0.5)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_atkincoef_eps05||metric||
|-
|[[Atkinson Coefficient (epsilon=1)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_atkincoef_eps1||metric||
|-
|[[Gini Coefficient]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_coef_lis||metric||
|-
|[[Gini(at disposable income post taxes & transfers)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_disinc_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: Palma (S80/S20 disposable income decile share)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_palma_s80s20_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: Palma (S90/S10 disposable income decile share)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_palma_s90s10_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: Palma (S90/S50 disposable income decile share)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_palma_s90s50_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Income inequality: Palma (S50/S10 disposable income decile share)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_palma_s50s10_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[GINI index (World Bank estimate)]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_ndx_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Gini Coefficient]]||Economic inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gini_coef_wiid4||metric||
|-
|[[Human Development Index]]||Human Development||Development indicator||Index value||socstr_hdi_undp||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Entire population]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratetpop_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Children (age 0-17)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratechild_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Working-age population (age 18-65)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratewap_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Relative poverty rates: Retirement-age population (over 65)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_repovratera_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap entire population]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgaptpop_oecd||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap at dollar 1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (%)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgap190_11_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap at dollar 3.20 a day (2011 PPP) (%)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgap320_11_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Urban poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of urban pop.)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Rate||socstr_urbpovratio_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Poverty gap at national poverty lines (%)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_povgapnat_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Rural poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of rural pop.)]]||Economic inequality||Poverty measure||Percentage||socstr_rurpovratio_wb||metric||
|-
|[[Gender Inequality Index]]||Social inequality||Inequality measure||Index value||socstr_gdi_undp||metric||
|-
|[[Population, total]]||||||||socstr_pop_tot_unctad||metric||Absolute value of population based on UNCTAD statistics
|}

Employment to population ratio, 15+, male (national estimate)

2020-08-12T10:05:11Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels = Not applicable
|techname = socstr_emp_pop_15m
|category = [[Social structure |Social structure]]
|label = Employment to population ratio, 15+, male (national estimate)
|relatedindicators = <ul><li>[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, female (national estimate)]]</li>
<li>[[Employment to population ratio, 15+, total (national estimate)]]</ul>
|description = Employment to population ratio is the proportion of a country’s population that is employed. Ages 15 and older are generally considered the working-age population. This indicator refers to a country's male population only. Values are based on national estimates.

|codingrules = Ratio = (employed male population aged 15+/total male population aged 15+)
|citation =
<ul>
<li>The World Bank Group. 2016. 'World Development Indicators'. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators (05 October 2018).
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
|projectmanagers = Jean-Yves Gerlitz
|revisions =
|sources =
<ul>
<li>Teorell, Jan, Stefan Dahlberg, Sören Holmberg, Bo Rothstein, Natalia Alvarado Pachon and Richard Svensson. 2019. The Quality of Government Standard Dataset, version Jan19. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute. http://www.qog.pol.gu.se doi:10.18157/qogstdjan19 </li>
</ul>
}}

Dismissal protection depends on size of enterprise

2020-08-12T10:02:30Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{IndicatorForm |datatype=Numeric |scale=Metric |scale=Metric |scale=Metric |valuelabels=<ul><li>0 = dismissal protection applies independently of size of the enterprise/does..."

{{IndicatorForm
|datatype=Numeric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|valuelabels=<ul><li>0 = dismissal protection applies independently of size of the enterprise/does not exist</li></ul>
<ul><li>1 = the law provides for a minimum threshold for dismissal
protection according to the size of the enterprise</li></ul>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
|techname=labor_dispro_size
|category=Labour and labour market
|label=General dismissal protection depends on the size of the enterprise
|relatedindicators=<ul>
<li>[[The law determines the legal status of the worker]]</li>
<li>[[Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal]]</li>
</ul>
|description=This WoL indicator measures if general dismissal protection depends on the size of the enterprise. Mass and collective dismissals are not considered.
|codingrules=The WoL is a leximetric dataset on individual employment protection. It quantifies the strength of the standard-setting, privileging, and equalising function of individual labour law (see Dingeldey et al. 2020). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to dismissal protection applying independently of the size of enterprise or the non-existence of dismissal protection and "1" to the law providing for a minimum threshold for dismissal protection according to the size of the enterprise. For country-specific information see WoL documentation (forthcoming).
|citation=<ul>
<li>Dingeldey, Irene, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, and Ulrich Mückenberger. 2020. "Measuring Legal Segmentation in Labour Law." ''SOCIUM SFB 1342 Working Papers No. 5'', Bremen: SOCIUM, University of Bremen. [https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf https://www.socialpolicydynamics.de/f/90e3891ffd.pdf] </li>
</ul>
|relatedpublications=<ul>
<li>Mückenberger, Ulrich, 1985. "Die Krise des Normalarbeitsverhältnisses - Hat das Arbeitsrecht noch Zukunft?" ''Zeitschrift für Sozialreform'' 31: 415-434; 457-475
</li>
<li>
Mückenberger, Ulrich, and Simon Deakin. 1989. "From Deregulation to a European Floor of Rights: Labour Law, Flexibilisation and the European Single Market." ''Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Und Internationales Arbeits- Und Sozialrecht'' 3: 153–207. </li>
</ul>
|projectmanagers=Karolin Meyer, Jean-Yves Gerlitz
|datarelease=
|revisions=
|sources=Own coding.
}}

Agency workers have the right to equal treatment

2020-08-12T09:03:40Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{IndicatorForm |datatype=Numeric |scale=Metric |scale=Metric |scale=Metric |valuelabels=<ul><li>1 = the legal system recognises a right to equal treatment in respect of terms..."

{{IndicatorForm
|datatype=Numeric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|valuelabels=<ul><li>1 = the legal system recognises a right to equal treatment in respect of terms and conditions of employment in general</li></ul>
<ul><li>0.5 = the legal system recognises a more limited right to equal
treatment (for example, in respect of antidiscrimination law)</li></ul>
<ul><li>0 = neither of the above</li></ul>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of law
|techname=labor_awork_et
|category=Labour and labour market
|label=Agency workers have the right to equal treatment
|relatedindicators=<ul>
<li>[[Dismissing costs for part-time workers is proportional]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term contracts are allowed only for limited duration]]</li>
<li>[[Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum duration of fixed-term contracts]]</li>
<li>[[Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
</ul>
|description=This CBR-LRI indicator measures if the legal system recognises a right to equal treatment for agency workers, in relation to permanent workers of the user undertaking, in respect of terms and conditions of employment in general.
|codingrules=The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the legal system recognising a right to equal treatment and "1" to the legal system recognising neither the right to equal treatment nor a more limited right to equal treatment. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).
|citation=Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
|relatedpublications=Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]

Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
|projectmanagers=Karolin Meyer, Jean-Yves Gerlitz
|datarelease=
|revisions=
|sources=Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]
}}

Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled

2020-08-12T09:02:11Z

Jgerlitz:

{{IndicatorForm
|datatype=Numeric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|valuelabels=<ul><li>1 = the legal system prohibits the use of agency labour</li></ul>
<ul><li>0.5 = legal system places substantive constraints on the use of agency labour</li></ul>
<ul><li>0 = neither of the above</li></ul>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
|techname=labor_awork_con
|category=Labour and labour market
|label=Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled
|relatedindicators=<ul>
<li>[[Agency workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
</ul>
|description=This CBR-LRI indicator measures whethers the legal system controlls or prohibits the use of agency labour.
|codingrules=The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the legal system prohibiting the use of agency labour and "1" to the legal system neither prohibiting nor controlling the use of agency labour. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).
|citation=Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91.[http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
|relatedpublications=Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]

Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
|projectmanagers=Jean-Yves Gerlitz
|datarelease=
|revisions=
|sources=
}}

Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled

2020-08-11T09:14:01Z

Jgerlitz:

{{IndicatorForm
|datatype=Numeric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|valuelabels=<ul><li>1 = the legal system prohibits the use of agency labour</li></ul>
<ul><li>0.5 = legal system places substantive constraints on the use of agency labour</li></ul>
<ul><li>0 = neither of the above</li></ul>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
|techname=labor_awork_con
|category=Labour and labour market
|label=Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled
|relatedindicators=Agency workers have the right to equal treatment
|description=This CBR-LRI indicator measures whethers the legal system controlls or prohibits the use of agency labour.
|codingrules=The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the legal system prohibiting the use of agency labour and "1" to the legal system neither prohibiting nor controlling the use of agency labour. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).
|citation=Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91.[http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
|relatedpublications=Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]

Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
|projectmanagers=Jean-Yves Gerlitz
|datarelease=
|revisions=
|sources=
}}

Legally mandated notice period (CBR-LRI)

2020-08-11T08:44:27Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 0 weeks</li>
<li>1 = 12 weeks</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_dis_not_per
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Legally mandated notice period
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the length of notice, in weeks, that has to be given to a worker with 3 years’ employment.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 0 weeks and "1" to 12 weeks. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Legally mandated notice period (CBR-LRI)

2020-08-11T08:43:11Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 0 weeks</li>
<li>1 = 12 weeks</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_dis_not_per
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Legally mandated redundancy compensation
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated mandated notice period]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the length of notice, in weeks, that has to be given to a worker with 3 years’ employment.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 0 weeks and "1" to 12 weeks. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled

2020-07-10T16:16:58Z

Jgerlitz:

{{IndicatorForm
|datatype=Numeric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|valuelabels= 1 = the legal system prohibits the use of agency labour
0.5 = legal system places substantive constraints on the use of agency labour
0 = neither of the above
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
|techname=labor_awork_con
|category=Labour and labour market
|label=Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled
|relatedindicators=Agency workers have the right to equal treatment
|description=This CBR-LRI indicator measures whethers the legal system controlls or prohibits the use of agency labour.
|codingrules=The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the legal system prohibiting the use of agency labour and "1" to the legal system neither prohibiting nor controlling the use of agency labour. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).
|citation=Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91.[http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
|relatedpublications=Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]

Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
|projectmanagers=Jean-Yves Gerlitz
|datarelease=
|revisions=
|sources=
}}

Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled

2020-07-10T16:09:29Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{IndicatorForm |datatype=Numeric |scale=Metric |scale=Metric |scale=Metric |valuelabels=1 = the legal system prohibits the use of agency labour 0.5 = legal system places sub..."

{{IndicatorForm
|datatype=Numeric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|scale=Metric
|valuelabels=1 = the legal system prohibits the use of agency labour
0.5 = legal system places substantive constraints on the use of agency labour
0 = neither of the above
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
|techname=labor_awork_con
|category=Labour and labour market
|label=Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled
|relatedindicators=Agency workers have the right to equal treatment
|description=This CBR-LRI indicator measures whethers the legal system controlls or prohibits the use of agency labour.
|codingrules=The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the legal system prohibiting the use of agency labour and "1" to the legal system neither prohibiting nor controlling the use of agency labour. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).
|citation=Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91.[http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
|relatedpublications=Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]

Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
|projectmanagers=Jean-Yves Gerlitz
|datarelease=
|revisions=
|sources=
}}

Maximum duration of fixed-term contracts

2020-06-10T15:36:56Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = 10 years or more/no limit</li> <li>1 = less than 1 year</li> normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 10 years or more/no limit</li>
<li>1 = less than 1 year</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_max_fx_dur
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Maximum duration of fixed-term contracts
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Dismissing costs for part-time workers is proportional]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term contracts are allowed only for limited duration]]</li>
<li>[[Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
<li>[[Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled]]</li>
<li>[[Agency workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the maximum cumulative duration of fixed-term contracts permitted by law before the employment is deemed to be permanent.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to the 10 years or more or no limit and "1" to less than 1 year. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Fixed-term workers have the right to equal treatment

2020-06-10T15:27:36Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = right to equal treatment does not exist</li> <li>0.5 = the legal system recognises a more limited..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = right to equal treatment does not exist</li>
<li>0.5 = the legal system recognises a more limited right to equal treat-ment</li>
<li>1 = the legal system recognises a right to equal treatment</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_fxemp_et
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Fixed-term workers have the right to equal treatment
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Dismissing costs for part-time workers is proportional]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term contracts are allowed only for limited duration]]</li>
<li>[[Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum duration of fixed-term contracts]]</li>
<li>[[Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled]]</li>
<li>[[Agency workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures if the legal system recognises a right to equal treatment for fixed-term workers (as, for example, in the case of EC Directive 99/70/EC).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the nonexistence of a right to equal treatment and "1" to the legal system recognising the right to equal treatment for fixed-term workers. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Fixed-term contracts are allowed only for limited duration

2020-06-10T15:21:30Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = no constraint exists</li> <li>1 = the law imposes a substantive constraint on the conclusion of a..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = no constraint exists</li>
<li>1 = the law imposes a substantive constraint on the conclusion of a fixed-term contract</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_fx_limit
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Fixed-term contracts are allowed only for limited duration
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
<li>[[Dismissing costs for part-time workers is proportional]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum duration of fixed-term contracts]]</li>
<li>[[Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled]]</li>
<li>[[Agency workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures if the law imposes a substantive constraint on the conclusion of a fixed-term contract, by, for example, allowing temporary hirings only for jobs which are temporary by nature, training, seasonal work, replacement of workers on maternity or sick leave, or other specified reasons.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the nonexistence of constraints in respect of the duration of fixed-term contracts and "1" to the law imposing a substantive constraint on the conclusion of a fixed-term contract. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment

2020-06-10T07:31:09Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = right to equal treatment does not exist</li>
<li>0.5 = the legal system recognises a more limited right to equal treat-ment</li>
<li>1 = the legal system recognises a right to equal treatment</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_ptemp_et
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Dismissing costs for part-time workers is proportional]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term contracts are allowed only for limited duration]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum duration of fixed-term contracts]]</li>
<li>[[Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled]]</li>
<li>[[Agency workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures if the legal system recognises a right to equal treatment for part-time workers with full-time workers (as, for example, in the case of EC Directive 97/81/EC).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the nonexistence of a right to equal treatment and "1" to the legal system recognising the right to equal treatment. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Dismissing costs for part-time workers is proportional

2020-06-10T07:30:40Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = proportionate rights in respect of dismissal protection do not exist</li> <li>1 = part-time worker..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = proportionate rights in respect of dismissal protection do not exist</li>
<li>1 = part-time workers enjoy proportionate in respect of dismissal protection</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_pt_dis_cost
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Dismissing costs for part-time workers is proportional
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term contracts are allowed only for limited duration]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum duration of fixed-term contracts]]</li>
<li>[[Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled]]</li>
<li>[[Agency workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures if as a matter of law part-time workers enjoy proportionate rights to full-time workers in respect of dismissal protection (notice periods, severance pay and unjust dismissal protection).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the nonexistence of proportionate rights in respect of dismissal protection and "1" to part-time workers enjoying proportionate in respect of dismissal protection. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment

2020-06-10T07:23:32Z

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = right to equal treatment does not exist</li>
<li>0.5 = the legal system recognises a more limited right to equal treat-ment</li>
<li>1 = the legal system recognises a right to equal treatment</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_ptemp_et
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Dismissing costs for part-time workers is proportional]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term contracts are allowed only for limited duration]]</li>
<li>[[Fixed-term workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum duration of fixed-term contracts]]</li>
<li>[[Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled]]</li>
<li>[[Agency workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures if the legal system recognises a right to equal treatment for part-time workers with full-time workers (as, for example, in the case of EC Directive 97/81/EC.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the nonexistence of a right to equal treatment and "1" to the legal system recognising the right to equal treatment. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

The law determines the legal status of the worker

2020-06-09T17:39:25Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = the parties are free to stipulate that the relationship is one of self-employment as opposed to employee status</li>
<li>0.5 = the law allows the issue of status to be determined by the nature of the contract made by the parties</li>
<li>1 = the law mandates employee status if certain criteria are met</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_work_def
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = The law determines the legal status of the worker
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Dismissal protection depends on size of enterprise]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures whethers parties are free to stipulate that the relationship is one of self-employment as opposed to employee status or if the law mandates employee status on the parties if certain specified criteria are met (such as form of payment, duration of hiring, etc.).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the freedom to stipulate the relationship and "1" to the law mandating employee status if certain criteria are met. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

The law determines the legal status of the worker

2020-06-09T17:39:11Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = the parties are free to stipulate that the relationship is one of self-employment as opposed to em..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = the parties are free to stipulate that the relationship is one of self-employment as opposed to employee status</li>
<li>1 = the law allows the issue of status to be determined by the nature of the contract made by the parties</li>
<li>1 = the law mandates employee status if certain criteria are met</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_work_def
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = The law determines the legal status of the worker
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Dismissal protection depends on size of enterprise]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures whethers parties are free to stipulate that the relationship is one of self-employment as opposed to employee status or if the law mandates employee status on the parties if certain specified criteria are met (such as form of payment, duration of hiring, etc.).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the freedom to stipulate the relationship and "1" to the law mandating employee status if certain criteria are met. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Duration of the normal working week

2020-06-09T17:24:21Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 50 hours or more/no limit</li>
<li>1 = 35 hours or less</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_workweek
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Duration of the normal working week
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Annual leave entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the maximum duration of the normal working week exclusive of overtime.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 50 hours or more and "1" to 35 hours or less. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Maximum daily working time

2020-06-09T17:23:32Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = 18 hours or more</li> <li>1 = 8 hours or less</li> normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1 </ul> |tec..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 18 hours or more</li>
<li>1 = 8 hours or less</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_workday
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Maximum daily working time
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Annual leave entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the maximum number of permitted working hours in a day, taking account of rules governing rest breaks and maximum daily working time limits.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 18 hours or more and "1" to 8 hours or less. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Duration of the normal working week

2020-06-09T17:18:20Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = 50 hours or more/no limit</li> <li>1 = 35 hours or less</li> normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 50 hours or more/no limit</li>
<li>1 = 35 hours or less</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_workweek
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Duration of the normal working week
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Annual leave entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the maximum duration of the normal working week exclusive of overtime.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to the 50 hours or more or no limit and "1" to 35 hours or less. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Limits to overtime working

2020-06-09T17:08:16Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = no limit exists</li> <li>0.5 = a limit exists, but may be averaged out over a reference period of..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = no limit exists</li>
<li>0.5 = a limit exists, but may be averaged out over a reference period of longer than a week</li>
<li>1 = maximum duration to weekly working hours, inclusive of overtime, for normal employment exists</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_overt_work
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Limits to overtime working
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Annual leave entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the maximum weekly number of overtime hours permitted by law or by collective agreements which are generally applicable.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the nonexistence of an overtime limit and "1" to a maximum duration to weekly working hours, inclusive of overtime, for normal employment. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Weekend working

2020-06-09T16:48:24Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = there is no premium</li>
<li>0.5 = premium is time and half</li>
<li>1 = premium is double time/weekend working is strictly controlled or prohibited</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_weekend_work
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Weekend working
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Annual leave entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the normal premium for weekend working set by law or by collective agreements which are generally applicable. The same score is given for laws and for collective agreements which are de facto binding on most of the workforce (as in the case of systems which have extension legislation for collective agreements).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the nonexistence of a premium and "1" to a premium that is double time or a strict control or prohibition of weekend work. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Overtime premia

2020-06-09T16:48:04Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = there is no premium</li>
<li>0.5 = premium is time and half</li>
<li>1 = premium is double time</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_overt_premia
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Overtime premia
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Annual leave entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the normal premium for overtime working set by law or by collective agreements which are generally applicable. The same score is given for laws and for collective agreements which are de facto binding on most of the workforce (as in the case of systems which have extension legislation for collective agreements).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the nonexistence of a premium and "1" to a premium that is double time. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Public holiday entitlements

2020-06-09T16:47:47Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 0 days</li>
<li>1 = 18 days</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_pub_hol_ent
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Public holiday entitlements
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Annual leave entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the normal number of paid public holidays guaranteed by law or collective agreement. The same score is given for laws and for collective agreements which are de facto binding on most of the workforce (as in the case of systems which have extension legislation for collective agreements).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 0 days and "1" to 18 days of paid holidays. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Annual leave entitlements

2020-06-09T16:47:25Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 0 days</li>
<li>1 = 30 days</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_ann_lea_ent
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Annual leave entitlements
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the normal length of annual paid leave guaranteed by law or collective agreement.The same score is given for laws and for collective agreements which are de facto binding on most of the workforce (as in the case of systems which have extension legislation for collective agreements).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 0 days and "1" to 30 days of annual paid leave. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Priority in re-employment

2020-06-09T16:47:08Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = employers does not have to follow priorty rules</li>
<li>1 = by law or binding collective agreement the employer must follow priority
rules relating to the re-employment of former workers</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_pri_re_emp
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Priority in re-employment
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated notice period]]</li>
<li>[[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]</li>
<li>[[Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes procedural constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes substantive constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Reinstatement normal remedy for unfair dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Third body notification of dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Redundancy selection]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures to what extent employers have to follow priority rules relating to the re-employment of former workers.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to not having to follow priority rules and "1" to having to follow priority rules relating to the re-employment of former workers, and gradations between the two values reflect gradtions in the strength of law. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Redundancy selection

2020-06-09T16:46:48Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = employers does not have to follow priorty rules prior to dismissing for redundancy</li>
<li>1 = by law or binding collective agreement the employer must follow priority
rules based on seniority, marital status, number or dependants, etc., prior to dismissing
for redundancy</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_redund_select
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Redundancy selection
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated notice period]]</li>
<li>[[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]</li>
<li>[[Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes procedural constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes substantive constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Reinstatement normal remedy for unfair dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Third body notification of dismissal]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures to what extent employers have to follow priority rules based on issues such as seniority, marital status, number of dependants etc. prior to a dismissal for redundancy.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to not having to follow priority rules and "1" to having to follow priority rules prior to a dismissal for redundancy, and gradations between the two values reflect gradtions in the strength of law. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Reinstatement normal remedy for unfair dismissal

2020-06-09T16:46:09Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = no remedy is available as of right</li>
<li>0.33 = compensation is the normal remedy</li>
<li>0.67 = reinstatement and compensation are, de-jure and de-facto, alternative remedies</li>
<li>1 = reinstatement is the normal remedy for unjust dismissal and is regularly enforced</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_reinstate
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Reinstatement normal remedy for unfair dismissal
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated notice period]]</li>
<li>[[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]</li>
<li>[[Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes procedural constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes substantive constraints on dismissal]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures to what extent reinstatement of an employee is the normal remedy for an unjust dismissal.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to no remedy being available as of right and "1" to reinstatement being the normal remedy for unjust dismissal that is regularly
enforced, and gradations between the two values reflect gradtions in the strength of law. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Law imposes substantive constraints on dismissal

2020-06-09T16:45:45Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = employment is at will (i.e., no cause dismissal is normally permissible)</li>
<li>0.33 = dismissal is permissible if it is ‘just’ or ‘fair’ as defined by case law</li>
<li>0.67 = dismissal is lawful according to a wider range of legitimate reasons (misconduct, lack of capability, redundancy, etc.)</li>
<li>1 = dismissal is only permissible for serious misconduct or fault of the employee</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_sub_dis_con
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Law imposes substantive constraints on dismissal
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated notice period]]</li>
<li>[[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]</li>
<li>[[Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes procedural constraints on dismissal]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures to what extent dismissal is only permissible for substantive reasons such as serious misconduct or fault of the employee.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to permissable dismissals wihout a cause and "1" to dismissals being only permissable for serious misconduct or fault of the emnployee, and gradations between the two values reflect gradtions in the strength of law. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Law imposes procedural constraints on dismissal

2020-06-09T16:44:54Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = there are no procedural requirements for dismissal</li>
<li>0.33 = failure to follow procedural requirement is just one factor taken into account in unjust dismissal cases</li>
<li>0.67 = failure to follow procedural requirements will normally lead to a finding of unjust dismissal</li>
<li>1 = dismissal is necessarily unjust if the employer fails to follow procedural requirements prior to dismissal</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_pro_dis_con
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Law imposes procedural constraints on dismissal
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated notice period]]</li>
<li>[[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]</li>
<li>[[Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures to what extent failure to follow procedural requirements constitute an unjust dismissal.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to an absense of procedural requirements and "1" to dismissals being necessarily being unjust if employers fails to follow procedural requirements, and gradations between the two values reflect gradtions in the strength of law. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal

2020-06-09T16:43:58Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 0 months</li>
<li>1 = 36 months or more</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_min_qua_per
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated notice period]]</li>
<li>[[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the period of service required before a worker qualifies for general protection
against unjust dismissal.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 0 months and "1" to 36 months or more. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Legally mandated redundancy compensation

2020-06-09T16:43:24Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 0 weeks</li>
<li>1 = 12 weeks</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_red_com_amm
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Legally mandated redundancy compensation
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated notice period]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the amount of redundancy compensation payable to a worker made redundant
after 3 years of employment, measured in weeks of pay.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 0 weeks and "1" to 12 weeks. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Legally mandated notice period (CBR-LRI)

2020-06-09T16:42:32Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 0 weeks</li>
<li>1 = 12 weeks</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_dis_not_per
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Legally mandated notice period
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated mandated notice period]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the length of notice, in weeks, that has to be given to a worker with 3 years’ employment.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 0 weeks and "1" to 12 weeks. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Jean-Yves Gerlitz</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Weekend working

2020-03-19T17:20:23Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = there is no premium</li> <li>0.5 = premium is time and half</li> <li>1 = premium is double time/we..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = there is no premium</li>
<li>0.5 = premium is time and half</li>
<li>1 = premium is double time/weekend working is strictly controlled or prohibited</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_weekend_work
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Weekend working
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Annual leave entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the normal premium for weekend working set by law or by collective agreements which are generally applicable. The same score is given for laws and for collective agreements which are de facto binding on most of the workforce (as in the case of systems which have extension legislation for collective agreements).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the nonexistence of a premium and "1" to a premium that is double time or a strict control or prohibition of weekend work. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Irene Dingeldey, Ulrich Mückenberger; research fellows: Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Overtime premia

2020-03-19T17:14:02Z

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = there is no premium</li>
<li>0.5 = premium is time and half</li>
<li>1 = premium is double time</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_overt_premia
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Overtime premia
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Annual leave entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the normal premium for overtime working set by law or by collective agreements which are generally applicable. The same score is given for laws and for collective agreements which are de facto binding on most of the workforce (as in the case of systems which have extension legislation for collective agreements).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the nonexistence of a premium and "1" to a premium that is double time. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Irene Dingeldey, Ulrich Mückenberger; research fellows: Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Annual leave entitlements

2020-03-19T16:04:59Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 0 days</li>
<li>1 = 30 days</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_ann_lea_ent
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Annual leave entitlements
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the normal length of annual paid leave guaranteed by law or collective agreement.The same score is given for laws and for collective agreements which are de facto binding on most of the workforce (as in the case of systems which have extension legislation for collective agreements).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 0 days and "1" to 30 days of annual paid leave. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Irene Dingeldey, Ulrich Mückenberger; research fellows: Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Public holiday entitlements

2020-03-19T16:03:40Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = 0 days</li> <li>1 = 18 days</li> normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1 </ul> |techname = labor_pub..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 0 days</li>
<li>1 = 18 days</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_pub_hol_ent
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Public holiday entitlements
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Annual leave entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the normal number of paid public holidays guaranteed by law or collective agreement. The same score is given for laws and for collective agreements which are de facto binding on most of the workforce (as in the case of systems which have extension legislation for collective agreements).

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 0 days and "1" to 18 days of paid holidays. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Irene Dingeldey, Ulrich Mückenberger; research fellows: Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Annual leave entitlements

2020-03-19T15:49:38Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = 0 days</li> <li>1 = 30 days</li> normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1 </ul> |techname = labor_ann..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = 0 days</li>
<li>1 = 30 days</li>
normalised scale ranging from 0 to 1
</ul>
|techname = labor_ann_lea_ent
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Annual leave entitlements
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Public holiday entitlements]]</li>
<li>[[Overtime premia]]</li>
<li>[[Weekend working]]</li>
<li>[[Limits to overtime working]]</li>
<li>[[Duration of the normal working week]]</li>
<li>[[Maximum daily working time]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures the normal length of annual paid leave guaranteed by law or collective agreement.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale of the indicator was normalised so that "0" corresponds to 0 days and "1" to 30 days of annual paid leave. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Irene Dingeldey, Ulrich Mückenberger; research fellows: Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Redundancy selection

2020-03-12T16:35:35Z

Jgerlitz:

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = employers does not have to follow priorty rules prior to dismissing for redundancy</li>
<li>1 = by law or binding collective agreement the employer must follow priority
rules based on seniority, marital status, number or dependants, etc., prior to dismissing
for redundancy</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_redund_select
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Redundancy selection
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated notice period]]</li>
<li>[[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]</li>
<li>[[Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes procedural constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes substantive constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Reinstatement normal remedy for unfair dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Third body notification of dismissal]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures to what extent employers have to follow priority rules based on issues such as seniority, marital status, number of dependants etc. prior to a dismissal for redundancy.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to not having to follow priority rules and "1" to having to follow priority rules prior to a dismissal for redundancy, and gradations between the two values reflect gradtions in the strength of law. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Irene Dingeldey, Ulrich Mückenberger; research fellows: Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Priority in re-employment

2020-03-12T16:34:03Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = employers does not have to follow priorty rules</li> <li>1 = by law or binding collective agreemen..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = employers does not have to follow priorty rules</li>
<li>1 = by law or binding collective agreement the employer must follow priority
rules relating to the re-employment of former workers</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_pri_re_emp
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Priority in re-employment
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated notice period]]</li>
<li>[[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]</li>
<li>[[Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes procedural constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes substantive constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Reinstatement normal remedy for unfair dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Third body notification of dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Redundancy selection]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures to what extent employers have to follow priority rules relating to the re-employment of former workers.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to not having to follow priority rules and "1" to having to follow priority rules relating to the re-employment of former workers, and gradations between the two values reflect gradtions in the strength of law. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Irene Dingeldey, Ulrich Mückenberger; research fellows: Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}

Redundancy selection

2020-03-12T16:27:04Z

Jgerlitz: Created page with "{{Indicator |datatype = Numeric |scale = Metric |valuelabels = <ul> <li>0 = employers don't have to follow priorty rules prior to dismissing for redundancy</li> <li>1 = by la..."

{{Indicator
|datatype = Numeric
|scale = Metric
|valuelabels =
<ul>
<li>0 = employers don't have to follow priorty rules prior to dismissing for redundancy</li>
<li>1 = by law or binding collective agreement the employer must follow priority
rules based on seniority, marital status, number or dependants, etc., prior to dismissing
for redundancy</li>
quasi-metric scale; further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law
</ul>
|techname = labor_redund_select
|category = [[Labour and labour market |Labour and labour market]]
|label = Redundancy selection
|relatedindicators =
<ul>
<li>[[Legally mandated notice period]]</li>
<li>[[Legally mandated redundancy compensation]]</li>
<li>[[Minimum qualifying period for unjust dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes procedural constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Law imposes substantive constraints on dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Reinstatement normal remedy for unfair dismissal]]</li>
<li>[[Third body notification of dismissal]]</li>
</ul>

|description =
This CBR-LRI indicator measures to what extent employers have to follow priority rules based on issues such as seniority, marital status, number of dependants etc. prior to a dismissal for redundancy.

|codingrules = The CBR-LRI is a leximetric dataset on employment protection. It quantifies the strength of protection expressed in labour law and functional equivalents such as administrative regulation and collective agreements (see Adams et al. 2017). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to not having to follow priority rules and "1" to having to follow priority rules prior to a dismissal for redundancy, and gradations between the two values reflect gradtions in the strength of law. For country-specific information see Adams, Bishop and Deakin (2016).

|citation =
<ul>
<li>Adams, Zoe, Parisa Bastani, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2017. "The CBR-LRI Dataset: Methods, Properties and Potential of Leximetric Coding of Labour Law." ''International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations'' 33 (1): 59–91. [http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004 http://kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=IJCL2017004]
</ul>

|relatedpublications =
<ul>
<li>
Adams, Zoe, Louise Bishop, and Simon Deakin. 2016. CBR Labour Regulation Index (Dataset of 117 Countries). Cambridge: Centre for Business Research. [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/263766/CBR_LRI_Dataset_Codebook_Methodology_2017_pdf.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y]
</li>
<li>
Deakin, Simon, Jonas Malmberg, and Prabirjit Sarkar. 2014. "How do labour laws affect unemployment and the labour share of national income? The experience of six OECD countries, 1970-2010". International Labour Review 153 (1): 1-27. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00195.x]
</li>
</ul>

|projectmanagers =
<ul>
<li>Irene Dingeldey, Ulrich Mückenberger; research fellows: Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs</li>
</ul>

|datarelease =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|revisions =
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>

|sources =
<ul>
<li> Deakin, Simon, John Armour, and Mathias Siems. 2017. "CBR Leximetric Datasets [updated] [Dataset]". [https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130 https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9130]</li>
</ul>
}}