Promoting social cohesion and convergence
Abstract
En este informe se analizan los grupos sociales cuya incorporación al mercado laboral puede ser inestable y con mayor probabilidad de tener modalidades de trabajo atípicas, así como las implicaciones de dichas modalidades y de la precariedad laboral para el bienestar de los trabajadores, la exclusión social, la confianza, la percepción de equidad y la participación política. El informe concluye que los contratos que no son fijos, el trabajo informal y los puestos de trabajo precarios están asociados a resultados negativos en lo que respecta a la exclusión social y la confianza, mientras que la precariedad laboral se asocia además a un menor bienestar. También se presentan ejemplos recientes de políticas que abordan la inestabilidad del mercado laboral, con especial atención a las medidas a más largo plazo en el periodo posterior a la pandemia.
Key findings
- Aunque los contratos temporales de corta duración se han vuelto menos habituales entre los trabajadores por cuenta ajena en la última década, siguen siendo relativamente frecuentes en algunos Estados miembros, principalmente entre los jóvenes y los no nacionales con bajos niveles educativos que no encuentran trabajo fijo, especialmente en los sectores de la educación y la salud. Los trabajadores temporales suelen trabajar muchas horas, se sienten subempleados y lo más probable es que busquen otros trabajos.
- Tanto los contratos no fijos como la precariedad laboral se asocian a una menor confianza en otras personas y una menor percepción de equidad. Los trabajadores con contrato no fijo y los trabajadores sin contrato formal están menos satisfechos con el funcionamiento de la democracia en su país, al igual que las personas en situación de precariedad laboral.
- Aun excluyendo del análisis a los no nacionales que no pueden votar (que están sobrerrepresentados en estas categorías), es menos probable que las personas con contratos temporales, así como las que están en una situación de precariedad laboral, voten en las elecciones. También es menos probable que participen en manifestaciones, lo que es un indicador de desafección.
- El motivo principal que aducen las personas para trabajar a tiempo parcial son las responsabilidades de cuidado, teniendo las mujeres casi tres veces más probabilidades de trabajar a tiempo parcial que los hombres, diferencia que se agrava entre las personas que tienen hijos y las que no. Aunque el trabajo a tiempo parcial involuntario ha disminuido desde los años de la Gran Recesión, los trabajadores a tiempo parcial están más dispuestos a trabajar horas extra y es más probable que busquen otro empleo que los trabajadores a tiempo completo, lo que refuerza las conclusiones anteriores de que parte del trabajo a tiempo parcial «voluntario» obedece a una cuestión de necesidad.
- Aunque no se observó que los contratos de duración determinada estuvieran relacionados con el bienestar, la precariedad laboral percibida se asocia, sin embargo, a una menor satisfacción vital, peor salud y bienestar mental, y una mayor probabilidad de sentirse excluido de la sociedad. La asociación entre la exclusión social y la precariedad laboral es similar a la relación entre la exclusión social y el desempleo, lo que sugiere que la amenaza del desempleo es suficiente para que los trabajadores se sientan excluidos de la sociedad.
The report contains the following lists of tables and figures.
List of tables
- Table 1: Negative feelings and risk of depression, by employment status and contract type
- Table A1: Regression analysis output (multinomial logistic regression) – temporary work
- Table A2: Regression analysis output (multinomial logistic regression) – part-time work
- Table A3: Regression analysis output (multinomial logistic regression) – self-employment
- Table A4: Correspondents who contributed to the study
List of figures
- Figure 1: Proportion of employees in temporary work in the EU, by duration of contract (%)
- Figure 2: Temporary work as a proportion of total employment, by reason, EU27, 2013–2021 (%)
- Figure 3: Temporary work as a proportion of total employment, by duration of contract, EU27, 2021 (%)
- Figure 4: Probability of engaging in temporary work, by relationship status and age (average marginal effect)
- Figure 5: Probability of engaging in temporary work, by education and citizenship (average marginal effect)
- Figure 6: Probability of engaging in temporary work, by economic activity (NACE Rev. 2) (average marginal effect)
- Figure 7: Part-time work as a proportion of total employment, by reason (%)
- Figure 8: Part-time work as a proportion of total employment, by sex, EU27, 2013–2021 (%)
- Figure 9: Short-time work as a proportion of total employment, by age, EU27, 2013–2021 (%)
- Figure 10: Probability of engaging in part-time work, by age and citizenship (average marginal effect)
- Figure 11: Probability of engaging in part-time work, by education, sex and presence of children (average marginal effect)
- Figure 12: Probability of engaging in part-time work, by economic activity (Nomenclature of Economic Activities Rev. 2) (average marginal effect)
- Figure 13: Self-employment without employees as a proportion of total employment, by occupation (%)
- Figure 14: Types of employment as a proportion of total employment, EU27, 2013–2021 (%)
- Figure 15: Probability of being self-employed, by year and degree of urbanisation (average marginal effect)
- Figure 16: Levels of labour market instability across EU Member States
- Figure 17: Perceived job insecurity, by working arrangement (%)
- Figure 18: Perceived health, by perceived likelihood of losing one’s job in the next six months (%)
- Figure 19: Logistic regression model of average marginal effect of selected factors on perceiving health as ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’
- Figure 20: Negative feelings and risk of depression, by perceived likelihood of losing one’s job in the next six months (%)
- Figure 21: Linear regression model of determinants of mental well-being (on a scale of 0–10)
- Figure 22: Logistic regression model of average marginal effect of selected factors on risk of depression
- Figure 23: Life satisfaction (on a scale of 1–10), by main activity, 2018
- Figure 24: Life satisfaction (on a scale of 1–10), by contract type, 2018
- Figure 25: Life satisfaction (on a scale of 1–10), by perceived likelihood of losing one’s job in the next six months
- Figure 26: Life satisfaction (on a scale of 1–10), by contract type and employment status
- Figure 27: Linear regression model of determinants of life satisfaction (on a scale of 1–10)
- Figure 28: Perceived social exclusion, by employment status and perceived likelihood of losing one’s job in the next six months (%)
- Figure 29: Logistic regression model of average marginal effect of selected factors on perceived social exclusion
- Figure 30: Trust in people (on a scale of 1–10), by main activity, 2018
- Figure 31: Trust in people (on a scale of 1–10), by work contract, 2018
- Figure 32: Linear regression analysis of determinants of trust in people among those in employment, 2018
- Figure 33: Linear regression analysis of determinants of trust in people among those not in employment, 2018
- Figure 34: Perception of fairness (on a scale of 0–10), by main activity, 2004–2018
- Figure 35: Perception of fairness (on a scale of 0–10), by contract type, 2018
- Figure 36: Linear regression analysis of determinants of perception of fairness among those in employment, 2018
- Figure 37: Linear regression model of determinants of trust in people, 2022
- Figure 38: Satisfaction with the government (on a scale of 0–10), by activity status, 2018
- Figure 39: Satisfaction with the government (on a scale of 0–10), by contract type, 2018
- Figure 40: Linear regression model of determinants of satisfaction with the government among those outside paid employment, 2018
- Figure 41: Linear regression model of determinants of satisfaction with the government among those in employment, 2018
- Figure 42: Linear regression model of determinants of trust in the government, 2022
- Figure 43: Satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, by activity status, 2018
- Figure 44: Satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, by contract type, 2018
- Figure 45: Linear regression model of determinants of satisfaction with democracy among those outside employment, 2018
- Figure 46: Linear regression model of determinants of satisfaction with democracy among those in employment, 2018
- Figure 47: Linear regression model of determinants of satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, 2022
- Figure 48: Proportion of people who voted in the last election, by work contract type (%)
- Figure 49: Proportion of people who voted in the last election, by activity status, 2018
- Figure 50: Proportion of workers who voted in the last election, by contract type, 2018
- Figure 51: Logistic regression model of average marginal effect of selected factors on voting in the last election
- Figure 52: Proportion of workers who participated in public demonstrations, by activity status (%)
- Figure 53: Logistic regression model of the average marginal effect of selected factors on participation in demonstrations
- Figure 54: Target groups of policy measures addressing labour market instability (%)
- Figure A1: Temporary work, by occupation in the International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (average marginal effect)
- Figure A2: Part-time work, by occupation in the International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (average marginal effect)
- Number of pages
-
82
- Reference nº
-
EF23011
- ISBN
-
978-92-897-2341-1
- Catalogue nº
-
TJ-04-23-771-EN-N
- DOI
-
10.2806/570695
- Permalink
Cite this publication
Eurofound (2023), Societal implications of labour market instability, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.