Social Indicators Research

, Volume 137, Issue 1, pp 203–230 | Cite as

Employment Quality: Are There Differences by Types of Contract?

  • José María Arranz
  • Carlos García-Serrano
  • Virginia Hernanz
Article
  • 178 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this article is to build and measure an employment quality index that meets four conditions: it is simple and understandable; it enables measurement over a long time period; it can be updated on an annual basis; it is comparable between groups of workers. Our index is quantified for different workers depending on the type of contract they have. In particular, we distinguish between those who hold an open-ended contract, those with temporary contracts hired directly by companies and those working through a temporary help agency. Furthermore, the index is measured on a ‘gross’ and a ‘net’ basis, i.e. taking into account the potential “composition effect”. Data from the Spanish and Italian Labour Force Survey are used to carry out the measurement. Our findings show that job quality remained fairly stable during the period of analysis (2006–2014), with a slight increase at the beginning and a minor decrease later on, and workers holding an open-ended contract fared the best and those with temporary contracts hired directly by companies fared the worst.

Keywords

Employment quality index Types of contract Temporary help agencies Composition effect 

JEL Classification

J41 J81 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Spanish Association of Temporary Help Agencies (Asociación de Empresas de Trabajo Temporal, ASEMPLEO), for which a study on job quality was carried out. This article is based partially on that study. Thanks are extended to the editor of the journal and three reviewers, to seminar and conference participants, and to professor Kant A. Manyanas. Obviously, the opinions and analyses are the sole responsibility of the authors and not those of ASEMPLEO. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Abowd, J. M., Kramarz, F., & Margolis, D. N. (1999). High wage workers and high wage firms. Econometrica, 67(2), 251–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerloff, G. (1980). A theory of social custom of which unemployment may be one consequence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94(4), 749–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert, C., García-Serrano, C., & Hernanz, V. (2005). Firm-provided training and temporary contracts. Spanish Economic Review, 7(1), 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anker, R., Chernyshev, I., Egger, P., Mehran, F., & Ritter, J. (2003). Measuring decent work with statistical indicators. International Labour Review, 142(2), 147–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arranz, J. M., García-Serrano, C., & Hernanz, V. (2016). Construcción y medición de un indicador de calidad del empleo. Madrid: ASEMPLEO.Google Scholar
  6. Autor, D., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. (2003). The skill-content of recent technological change: an empirical investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1279–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbieri, P., & Scherer, S. (2009). Labour market flexibilization and its consequences in Italy. European Sociological Review, 25(6), 677–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of the post-industrial society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bescond, D., Chataignier, A., & Mehran, F. (2003). Seven indicators to measure decent work: an international compariso. International Labour Review, 142(2), 179–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bonnet, F., Figueiredo, J. B., & Standing, G. (2003). A family of decent work indexes. International Labour Review, 142(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cebrián, I., Moreno, G., Samek, M., Semenza, R., & Toharia, L. (2003). Nonstandard work in Italy and Spain. In S. Houseman & M. Osawa (Eds.), Nonstandard work in developed economies. Causes and consequences (pp. 89–129). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davia, M. A., & Hernanz, V. (2004). Temporary employment and segmentation in the Spanish labour market: an empirical analysis through the study of wage differentials. Spanish Economic Review, 6, 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davoine, L., Erhel, Ch., & Guergoat-Lariviere, M. (2008). Monitoring quality in work: European Employment Strategy indicators and beyond. International Labour Review, 147(2–3), 163–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. (1970). Internal labor markets and manpower analysis. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  18. Edgell, S. (2006). The sociology of work: Continuity and change in paid and unpaid work. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Eurofound (2002). Quality of work and employment in Europe: issues and challenges. Foundation paper no. 1. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  20. Eurofound. (2012). Trends in job quality in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission (2001). Employment and social policies: a framework for investing in quality. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee.Google Scholar
  22. Gallie, D. (Ed.). (2007). Employment regimes and the quality of work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. García, C., Prieto, M. & Simón, H. (2016). A new multidimensional approach to measuring precarious employment. Social Indicators Research, September.Google Scholar
  24. García-Serrano, C. (2004). Temporary employment, working conditions, and expected exits from firms”. Labour, 18(2), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. García-Serrano, C., Hernanz, V., & Toharia, L. (2010). Mind the gap, please! The effect of temporary help agencies on the consequences of work accidents. Journal of Labor Research, 31(2), 162–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. García-Serrano, C. & Malo, M.A. (2013). Employment and the quality of jobs. Country case studies on labour market segmentation: Spain. Employment Working Paper No. 143, International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  27. Ghai, D. (2003). Decent work: Concept and indicators. International Labour Review, 142(2), 113–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gordon, D. M., Edwards, R., & Reich, M. (1982). Segmented work, divided workers: The historical transformation of labor in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Green, F. (2006). Demanding work. The paradox of job quality in the affluent economy. Woodstock: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Guest, D. (2002). Perspectives on the study of work-life balance. Social Science Information, 41(2), 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hernanz, V., Origo, F., Lodovici, M. S., & Toharia, L. (2008). Dreaming of a permanent job: The transition of temporary workers in Italy and Spain. In R. J. A. Muffels (Ed.), Flexibility and Employment Security in Europe (pp. 79–106). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  32. Hernanz, V., & Toharia, L. (2006). Do temporary contracts increase work accidents? A microeconometric comparison between Italy and Spain. Labour, 20(3), 475–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ILO. (2012). Decent work indicators: concepts and definitions. ILO Manual, First edition, Geneva: International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
  34. Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Work-life balance: A review of the meaning of the balance construct. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(3), 323–327.Google Scholar
  35. Lallemand, T., Plasman, R., & Rycx, F. (2007). The establishment-size wage premium: Evidence from European countries. Empirica, 34(5), 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leschke, J. & Watt, A. (2008). Job quality in Europe. Working Paper 2008–2007, European Trade Union Institute for Research, Education and Health and Safety (ETUI-REHS), Brussels.Google Scholar
  37. Leschke, J., Watt, A. & Finn, M. (2008). Putting a number on job quality? Constructing a European Job Quality Index. Working Paper 2008–2003, European Trade Union Institute for Research, Education and Health and Safety (ETUI-REHS), Brussels.Google Scholar
  38. Leschke, J., Watt, A. & Finn, M. (2012). Job quality in the crisisAn update of the Job Quality Index (JQI). Working Paper 2012–07, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), Brussels.Google Scholar
  39. Muñoz de Bustillo, R., Fernández-Macías, R. E., Antón, J. I., & Esteve, F. (2011a). Measuring more than money: the social economics of job quality. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Muñoz de Bustillo, R., Fernández-Macías, R. E., Antón, J. I., & Esteve, F. (2011b). E prluribus unum? A critical survey of job quality indicators. Socio-Economic Review, 9, 447–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Navarro, V. (1982). The labor process and health: A historical materialist interpretation. International Journal of Health Services, 12(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. OECD (2002). Taking the measure of temporary employment. Chapter 3, OECD Employment Outlook 2002, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  43. OECD (2014). How good is your work? Measuring and assessing job quality. Chapter 3, OECD Employment Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  44. Oi, W., & Idson, T. (1999). Firm size and wages. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics (Vol. 3, pp. 2166–2214). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  45. Olsthoorn, M. (2014). Measuring precarious employment: A proposal for two indicators of precarious employment based on set-theory and tested with Dutch labor market-data. Social Indicators Research, 119(1), 421-441.Google Scholar
  46. Polavieja, J. G. (2003). Temporary contracts and labour market segmentation in Spain. An employment-rent approach. European Sociological Review, 19(5), 501–517.Google Scholar
  47. Ritter, J. A., & Anker, R. (2002). Good jobs, bad jobs: workers evaluations in five countrie. International Labour Review, 141(4), 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodgers, G., & Rodgers, J. (1989). Precarious jobs in labour market regulation: The growth of atypical employment in Western Europe. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  49. Royuela, V., López-Tamayo, J., & Suriñach, J. (2009). Results of a quality of work life index in Spain. A comparison of survey results and aggregate social indicators. Social Indicators Research, 90(2), 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sehnbruch, K. (2004). From the quantity to the quality of employment: an application of the capability approach to the Chilean labour market. Working Paper 9, Center for Latin American Studies.Google Scholar
  51. Tangian, A. (2005). A composite indicator of working conditions in the EU-15 for policy monitoring and analytical purposes. Discussion Paper 135, Hans Blockler Foundation WSI, Dusseldorf.Google Scholar
  52. Tilly, C. (1996). The good, the bad and the ugly: good and bad jobs in the United States at the millenium. Working Paper 103, Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  53. UNECE. (2010). Measuring quality of employment—Country pilot reports. Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.Google Scholar
  54. Warr, P. (2007). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Wilkinson, C. (2001). Fundamentals of health at work: The social dimensions. London: Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de AlcaláAlcalá de HenaresSpain

Personalised recommendations