Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Measuring Labour Mismatch in Europe

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We calculate aggregate and comparable measures of mismatch in the labour market for 30 European countries. These indicators measure vertical mismatch (related to the level of education, e.g. overeducation, and undereducation) and horizontal mismatch (related to the field of education) and are comparable across countries and through time. In European countries, between 15 % to nearly 35 % of workers have a job for which they have more (or less) qualifications than the usual level. Approximately 20 % to nearly 50 % work in a job for which they do not have the usual field qualification. There is a great variability on mismatch across European labour markets. Undereducation affects more workers than overeducation in most European countries. Low correlations between mismatch and unemployment indicate that mismatch should be regarded as an additional informative variable, thus useful to characterize labour markets.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We have found articles that individually evaluate the effects of mismatch measures in USA, Canada, UK, Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Hong Kong. Those measures are not comparable due to different sources, year coverage, and methods. Sloane (2002) presents a detailed review of some of these papers.

  2. The alternative methods are discussed below.

  3. A matched employer-employee dataset with information for all firms with at least one wage earner.

  4. Specifically, Job Analysis detects that, of all workers, 33.1 % are overeducated, 37.5 % are undereducated and 29.4 % are correct matches. The methodology of Realized Matches methodology, using the mean as the reference, detects 85.6 % of correct matches (9.4 % overeducation and 5 % of undereducation), but using the mode as the reference, correct matches are no more than 57.5 % (25.5 % overeducation and 17 % undereducation). These results are in line with those we obtain for Portugal (in 1995, near 12 % overeducation and 4 % undereducation, compares with the mean results of 9.4 and 5 %, respectively), although we analyse a more recent period. This comparative study was performed using Quadros de Pessoal for the period 1985–1991. Comparison with Worker Self-Assessment method is not feasible.

  5. This procedure has now become common since large country surveys use ISCED levels and not years of education as a measure of schooling attainment [see e.g. Biagetti and Scicchitano (2011) and Glocker and Steiner (2011)]. The definition of the source HATLEVEL variable and the correspondence scale between the HATLEVEL and years of education are in the “Appendix”.

  6. The use of one and two standard deviation from the mean is based on the 95 % confidence intervals (2 standard-deviations from the mean)—see e.g. Kiker et al. (1997).

  7. An alternative approach here would be to consider any deviation from the mode. However, given that the definitions of the source variable HATFIELD have a certain notion of ‘ proximity’ between the needed skills to attain different fields of study [e.g. Humanities, languages and arts (200) is closer to Foreign languages (222) than to Computer science (481)] we choose the approach that measures distance from the average, which we think better captures this notion of ‘ proximity’ between fields of study.

  8. Undereducation is always higher than overeducation in Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweeden, and Switzerland. Undereducation is higher than overeducation in a majority of the years in the sample in Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland. Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia and United Kingdom. In Iceland, Cyprus, Germany, Malta, Slovak Republic, and Spain there are mixed results (undereducation and overeducation levels are very close and there are switches of the one that prevails along the time series). In Italy, Greece and Romania overeducation is higher than undereducation in a majority of the years in the sample and Portugal is the only country that presents higher levels of over- than of undereducation in the whole country time-series.

  9. We do not perform this analysis for horizontal mismatch due to the small number of time-series observations per country.

References

  • Biagetti, M., & Scicchitano, S. (2011). Education and wage inequality in Europe. Economics Bulletin, 31(3), 2620–2628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budría, S., & Moro-Egido, A. (2008). Education, educational mismatch, and wage inequality: Evidence for Spain. Economics of Education Review, 27, 332–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coelho, H. M., Soares, L. M., & Feliz, M. I. B. (1982). Os N íveis de Qualificação na Contratação Colectiva, Sua Aplicação a Algumas Empresas Públicas do Sector dos Transportes e Comunicações. Ministério do Trabalho.

  • den Haan, W., Ramey, G., & Watson, J. (2000). Job destruction and propagation of shocks. American Economic Review, 90(3), 482–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EUROSTAT. (2012). Labour Force Survey Microdata, supplied by the EUROSTAT under contract LFS/2012/22.

  • Glocker, D., & Steiner, V. (2011). Returns to education across Europe. CEPR discussion paper series no. 8568.

  • Hartog, J. (2000). Over-education and earnings: Where are we, where should we go? Economics of Education Review, 19, 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiker, B. F., & Santos, M. C. (1991). Human capital and earnings in Portugal. Economics of Education Review, 10(3), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiker, B. F., Santos, M. C., & Mendes de Oliveira, M. (1997). Overeducation and undereducation: Evidence for Portugal. Economics of Education Review, 16(2), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuven, E., & Oosterbeek, H. (2011). Overeducation and mismatch in the labor market. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 4, 283–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauro, L., & Carmeci, G. (2003). Long run growth and investment in education: Does unemployment matter? Journal of Macroeconomics, 25(1), 123–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendes de Oliveira, M., Santos, M. C., & Kiker, B. F. (2000). The role of human capital and technological change in overeducation. Economics of Education Review, 19, 199–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ordine, P., & Rose, G. (2011). Educational mismatch and wait unemployment. Alma Laurea working papers 19.

  • Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robst, J. (2007). Education and job match: The relatedness of college major and work. Economics of Education Review, 26(4), 397–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloane, P. (2002). Much ado about nothing? What does the over-education literature really tell us? Keynote address, International Conference on Over-education in Europe.

  • Wolbers, M. (2003). Job mismatches and their labour market effects among school leavers in Europe. European Sociological Review, 19(3), 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We kindly acknowledge financial support by Fundação para a Ciê ncia e Tecnologia, under project Education Mismatches and Productivity Differences (PTDC/EGE-ECO/112499/2009). The raw micro-data used in this paper are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and were supplied by the Eurostat, under contract LFS/2012/22, which we acknowledge. The responsibility for the conclusions in this paper is the authors’ and not of Eurostat, the European Commission, or any of the national authorities whose data have been used. An earlier version of this work has circulated under the same title as a Working-Paper (CEFAGE-UE Working-Paper 2014/13).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiago Neves Sequeira.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Definitions of the Source Variables

HATLEVEL

Definition

Years of schooling

0

No formal education or below ISCED 1

0

10

ISCED 0–1 (pre-primary education)

1

11

ISCED 1 (primary education or first stage of basic education)

5

21

ISCED 2 (lower secondary education or first stage of basic education)

8

22

ISCED 3 (upper secondary education; access to labour market)-shorter than 2 years

10

31

ISCED 3c (2 years and more)

13

32

ISCED 3a,b (upper secondary education providing access to level 5)

13

30

ISCED 3 (without distinction a,b, or c possible, 2 years +)

13

33

ISCED 3c (3 years or longer) or ISCED 4c

13

34

ISCED 3b or ISCED 4b

13

35

ISCED 3a or ISCED 4a

13

36

ISCED 3 or 4 (without distinction a, b or c possible)

13

41

ISCED 4a, b (post secondary, non-tertiary education giving access to level 5)

14

42

ISCED 4c

14

43

ISCED 4 (without distinction a, b or c possible)

14

51

ISCED 5b (first stage of tertiary education; provides access to an occupation)

17

52

ISCED 5b (first stage of tertiary education theoretically based; provides access to research programmes)

17

60

ISCED 6 (second stage of tertiary education, leading to advanced research qualification)

19

HATFIELD

Definition

0

General programmes

100

Teacher training and education science

200

Humanities, languages and arts

222

Foreign languages

300

Social sciences, businesses and law

400

Science, mathematics and computing

420

Life sciences (including biology and environmental science)

440

Physical science (including physics, chemistry and earth science)

460

Mathematics and statistics

481

Computer science

482

Computer use

500

Engineering, manufacturing and construction

600

Agriculture and veterinary

700

Health and welfare

800

Services

Economic activity

Definition

A

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

B

Mining and quarrying

C

Manufacturing

D

Electricity, gas and steam

E

Water and waste

F

Construction

G

Wholesale and retail trade, repair of vehicles

H

Transportation and storage

I

Accommodation and food service

J

Information and communication

K

Financial and insurance

L

Real estate

M

Professional, scientific and technical

N

Administrative and support service

O

Public administration and defense

P

Education

Q

Human health and social work

R

Arts, entertainment and recreation

S

Other service activities

T

Households production

U

Extraterritorial activities

Occupation

Definition

100

Managers

200

Professionals

300

Technicians

400

Clerical

500

Service and sales workers

600

Agricultural, forestry and fishery workers

700

Craft and related trades

800

Plant and machine operators

900

Elementary occupations

1.2 Number of Observations by Country for HATLEVEL Variable

Country

Obs.

Country

Obs.

Country

Obs.

Country

Obs.

Austria

1,288,556

France

3,087,955

Lithuania

341,138

Slovak Rep.

672,149

Belgium

942,070

Germany

1,130,341

Luxembourg

296,124

Slovenia

464,774

Bulgaria

531,795

Greece

2,232,709

Malta

52,721

Spain

2,433,548

Cyprus

234,948

Hungary

1,830,379

Netherlands

1,293,398

Sweden

1,647,500

Czech Rep.

1,342,063

Iceland

94,197

Norway

351,623

Switzerland

491,162

Denmark

574,749

Ireland

1,562,564

Poland

1,643,658

United Kingdom

1,435,754

Estonia

147,989

Italy

3,858,707

Portugal

1,143,686

  

Finland

488,471

Latvia

216,173

Romania

1,437,500

  

1.3 Number of Observations by Country for HATFIEL Variable

Country

Obs.

Country

Obs.

Country

Obs.

Country

Obs.

Austria

711,155

France

1,251,307

Lithuania

237,564

Slovak Rep.

460,423

Belgium

322,322

Germany

649,987

Luxembourg

145,196

Slovenia

281,122

Bulgaria

281,195

Greece

821,746

Malta

15,973

Spain

306,184

Cyprus

141,340

Hungary

1,043,699

Netherlands

614,926

Sweden

1,139,786

Czech Rep.

749,145

Iceland

43,033

Norway

173,987

Switzerland

269,252

Denmark

327,599

Ireland

431,997

Poland

1,002,464

United Kingdom

477,807

Estonia

84,242

Italy

1,606,183

Portugal

221,632

  

Finland

233,986

Latvia

117,825

Romania

836,328

  

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morgado, A., Sequeira, T.N., Santos, M. et al. Measuring Labour Mismatch in Europe. Soc Indic Res 129, 161–179 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1097-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1097-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation