|
The primary and secondary variables in
the SES DataBase are in themselves indicators. But when one has to describe
more complex phenomenon such decent work or economic security it is the
view in the SES programme that a simple construct or a single variable
can not adequately represent it. A combination of variables – a composite
index - that represents, or is a proxy for, the various elements underlying
the phenomenon is necessary.
Although the user is free to define his or
her set of indexes by using variables from the SES DataBase and chosing
a methodology, the SES programme has developed its own approach and built
and SES set of security indexes.
|
These indexes cover all the
different forms of economic security and serve different analytical and
policy-based purposes. Among the most important are the measurement of
economic security, the international comparisons of security provision,
the ranking of countries according to their performance and the identification
of clusters of countries according to similar country standards in the
field of security. |
|
This module contains a series of 8 security
indexes, one for each of the 7 forms of security
and one which is a synthesis of all these 7 particular indexes: labour market security, employment protection
security, job security, skills security, work security, representation
security and income security. In addition an Old Age Pension Security Index
has been calculated to take into account the income security of the elderly.
Each index is the result of a combination
of between 14 and 25 indicators of three types: input indicators which
regroup variables reflecting the principles, laws and other instruments
relevant to form of security; process indicators which represent the means
put in place to provide a form of security; and outcome indicators which
evaluate the extent to which security has been effectively provided. |
The index score is a weighted average
of these sets of indicators, the values of which have been previously normalized.
For each country and form of security there is a score ranging between
0 and 1 which reflects a country?s relative level and position regarding
a form of security. The more detailed features and methodological definition
can be found in the in various technical publications from the SES programme
(see for example ILS, Global Report).
|
|
The following, very briefly, describes the basic procedures and principles
adopted for compiling national or macro indexes of the various forms of
security:
i) Categorizing Indicators:
Three types of indicators are developed:
- Input indicators are the national and international instruments and rules
necessary to protect workers. These are identified, for instance, as the
existence of basic laws or ratified ILO Conventions on work-related hazards,
unfair dismissal, the right to organize, etc.
- Process indicators are the mechanisms or resources
through which such “input” principles
and rules are realized. Examples are the level of public expenditure on
a particular form of security, the existence of labour inspectors, and
the existence of labour-related tripartite boards.
- Outcome indicators are the elements that provide a
measure of whether the Input and Process indicators appear to be effective,
notably in ensuring protection to workers. For example, outcome indicators would assess the
proportion of workers effectively protected, participating in collective
agreements, or receiving benefits or pensions.
ii) Indicator selection principles
One key principle is the availability and reliability of data. Any indicator
should be a reasonable, transparent proxy for a well-defined phenomenon,
and have a correspondingly clear meaning. It should be robust, capable
of statistical validation, measurable and comparable across countries
or communities.
|
iii). Data processing
A great virtue in transparency and simplicity. The more complex the way an
index is constructed, the greater the suspicion that the data and reasoning
have been “massaged”. Therefore a simple additive model of analysis
generating an ordinal scale has been applied.
On weighting, in general an equal weight approach is adopted.
In other words, each indicator is given the same weight in the calculation
of the sub-index (input, process or outcome indicators).
However, the composite indexes presented in this report give outcome indicators
double the weight of input and process indicators, based on the view that countries
providing higher security, irrespective of the quality of their institutions
and laws, should be regarded more favourably.
On scaling, the report follows the standard normalization
procedure developed for the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI), which
can be defined as follows:
Normalized vValue X = [Actual–Minimum
Values]/[Maximum — Minimum Values]
where X is the Security score (or value), Actual is the
score attained by the country on a particular indicator, Minimum is the
lowest value attained by any country on that particular variable, and
Maximum is the maximum value attained by any country for that variable.
Where appropriate and statistically feasible, indicators
and indexes should reflect gender differentiation. This is most commonly
done by using the female/male ratio; if greater than one, it suggests
a positive contribution against gender discrimination or for the level
of security of women. |
