Equalising function - Revision history

ASchaefer at 11:48, 5 December 2024

2024-12-05T11:48:08Z

ASchaefer at 11:47, 5 December 2024

2024-12-05T11:47:16Z

ASchaefer at 11:46, 5 December 2024

2024-12-05T11:46:43Z

ASchaefer at 11:45, 5 December 2024

2024-12-05T11:45:29Z

Show changes

Stecor at 14:26, 8 November 2021

2021-11-08T14:26:08Z

ASchaefer at 14:09, 19 May 2021

2021-05-19T14:09:48Z

ASchaefer at 07:53, 19 May 2021

2021-05-19T07:53:24Z

ASchaefer at 07:49, 19 May 2021

2021-05-19T07:49:51Z

ASchaefer at 07:30, 19 May 2021

2021-05-19T07:30:52Z

ASchaefer at 14:48, 18 May 2021

2021-05-18T14:48:20Z

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 <li>Agency workers have the right to equal treatment with permanent workers of the user undertaking: CBR-LRI, A.8</li>
 </ul>
-Assessment of the scale level in Dingeldey et al. (2022) and Adams et al. (2017, 2023) and the description of the values in the template differ. As Adams et al. (2023) state “Some indicators use binary coding but most use non-binary or graduated scores. The template indicates the approach to scoring in each case. Some indicators are expressed as cardinal variables (for example, those relating to minimum qualifying periods of continuous employment) but most are expressed on an ordinal scale.” (p. 7) and Dingeldey et al. (2022) state “The nature of each indicator’s scale depended on the number of possible states that we could envisage for that variable; in the end, all indicators that we developed had either binary (true and false) or graduated scales, some of which, drawing on the CBR, were ordinal in nature, and some cardinal (in the case, for example, of certain working time standards).” (p. 582).
+Assessment of the scale level in Dingeldey et al. (2022) and Adams et al. (2017, 2023) and the description of the values in the template differ. As Adams et al. (2023) state “Some indicators use binary coding but most use non-binary or graduated scores. The template indicates the approach to scoring in each case. Some indicators are expressed as cardinal variables (for example, those relating to minimum qualifying periods of continuous employment) but most are expressed on an ordinal scale.” (p. 7) and Dingeldey et al. (2022) state “The nature of each indicator’s scale depended on the number of possible states that we could envisage for that variable; in the end, all indicators that we developed had either binary (true and false) or graduated scales, some of which, drawing on the CBR, were ordinal in nature, and some cardinal (in the case, for example, of certain working time standards).” (p. 582).<br>
 Using the 15 variables, an additive index was calculated by adding the values of all variables in the aspects within the dimensions 'discrimination' (N=8) and 'flexibilisation' (N=7) and dividing by their number. Each dimension is assigned identical weights, as are all variables of the same dimension. Finally, the two dimensions are added together and divided by two to generate the index "Equalising function". The calculations reproduce the SPE typology from Dingeldey et al. 2020, 2022 with the exact same data (in consultation with the persons responsible for the calculations and exchange of the STATA-do files). All missing values were excluded from the analysis.
 |citation = Schäfer, Andrea, Marina Carlino, Irene Dingeldey, Heiner Fechner, Ulrich Mückenberger and (2024). Equalising function data (2024). University of Bremen.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 The variable is available for 115 countries from 1970 to 2013, using 8 World of Labour (WoL) variables and 7 CBR-LRI variables (see Dingeldey et al. 2020, 2022). The data from CBR Labour Regulation Index Dataset was coded using provisions of law and relevant court decisions, which are taken from secondary sources, national law databases, and ILO NATLEX data (see Adams et al. 2017, 2023). The 8 World of Labour (WoL) variables were coded using statutory law, only. The different coding basis (text for the coding of legal norms) leads to a different mapping of the scope of law between the CBR and WoL variables. The "Equalising function" is recreated from the SPE-typology (see Dingeldey et al. 2020), which distinguishes the standard-setting (S), privileged (P) and compensatory (E) functions of labor law.<br>
 |codingrules =
-The index calculation is based on 7 CBR-LRI and 8 WoL indicators; the first 8 variables are classified as 'discrimination', and the remaining 7 as 'flexibilisation'::
+The index calculation is based on 7 CBR-LRI and 8 WoL indicators; the first 8 variables are classified as 'discrimination', and the remaining 7 as 'flexibilisation':
 <ul>
 <li>The law provides for equal opportunities for men and women in terms of access to employment: WoL, V1</li>

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:46, 5 December 2024
Line 59:		Line 59:
	<li>The sources used for coding the WoL-values are not available (for more information on sources pls contact the person responsible for data coding – see entry: Project manager(s)) -. </li>		<li>The sources used for coding the WoL-values are not available (for more information on sources pls contact the person responsible for data coding – see entry: Project manager(s)) -. </li>
	</ul>		</ul>
		+	}}

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 |datatype = Numeric
 |scale = Metric
-|valuelabels = 0 to 1. 1 is the maximum value, it reflects the highest possible level of norm-related equalising.
+|valuelabels = <ul>
-<ul>
+<li> 0 to 1. 1 is the maximum value, it reflects the highest possible level of norm-related equalising.</li>
 </ul>
 |techname =  labor_equa_func
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 We calculated the mean of all indicators of one dimension, and again the mean of all dimensions of the function, thereby assigning equal weights to each dimension, and thus equal weights to all indicators of one dimension.
 |citation =
-<ul>
+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. 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]
+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>
@@ Line 48: / Line 47: @@
 |projectmanagers =
-<ul>
+Andrea Schäfer
- <li>Andrea Schäfer</li>
+|datarelease = <ul><li>Version 0.001: Initial release</li></ul>
-</ul>
+|revisions = No revisions yet
 |sources =

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 |relatedindicators =
 <ul>
 <li>[[Standard-setting function]]</li>
 <li>[[Privileging function]]</li>

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 <li>[[Agency workers have the right to equal treatment]]</li>
 </ul>
-|description = The equalising function refers to a form of legal segmentation which arises from passivity, meaning that contractual freedom allows employers to circumvent employment protection resulting in inequalities between groups. Thus, it captures the level of protection of social groups of employees who are discriminated against, as part of a cultural phenomenon or related to non-standard employment contracts. The function is measured by 15 indicators and includes norms relating to the two dimensions discrimination and flexibilisation and focuses on two aspects each (access, working conditions, restriction, equal treatment).
+|description = The equalising function refers to a form of legal segmentation which arises from passivity, meaning that contractual freedom allows employers to circumvent employment protection resulting in inequalities between groups. Thus, it measures the level of protection of social groups of employees who are discriminated against, as part of a cultural phenomenon or related to non-standard employment contracts in individual labour law. The function is measured by 15 indicators and includes norms relating to the two dimensions discrimination and flexibilisation and focuses on two aspects each (access, working conditions, restriction, equal treatment).
 |codingrules =
 The index calculation relies on nine CBR-LRI and eight WoL indicators: Law provides for equal access to employment for men and women, Law provides regulation of positive discrimination of women, Law provides for equal access to employment concerning ethnicity/race, Law provides regulation of positive discrimination of ethnicity/race, Equal pay for equal work is legally provided for, Law provides for equal working conditions for men and women, Law provides for equal working conditions concerning ethnicity/race, Employees enjoy right to a general minimum wage, Fixed-term contracts are allowed only for limited duration, Maximum duration of fixed-term contracts, Agency work is prohibited or strictly controlled, Part-time workers have the right to equal treatment, Dismissing costs for part-time workers is proportional, Fixed-term workers have the right to equal treatment and

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 <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''.
 |relatedpublications =
 <ul>