TMMEI/1998 - Part 2

	INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
	Sectoral Activities Programme

machinery and electronic industries report Impact of flexible labour market arrangements in the machinery electrical and electronic industries

Report for discussion at the Tripartite Meeting on
the Impact of Flexible labour market Arrangements
in theMachinery, Electrical and Electronic Industries

Part 2

2. Global trends in the sector

International production --international sourcing of components in an integrated production chain -- plays a significant role in the machinery industry (electrical and non-electrical). Across sectors in general, a long-term trend can be discerned towards increased international outsourcing of intermediate production inputs in search of cost and quality advantages. Wide international outsourcing has been especially pronounced in technology-intensive industries, such as computers, motor vehicles, electronics and aerospace, as well as consumer goods such as textiles and clothing.⁽¹⁾ Closer integration of southern countries in the global economy, as reflected in imports of manufactured goods from these economies, is significantly linked with the decline in manufacturing employment that has been observed in virtually all OECD countries in the last 25 years, while intra-OECD trade has only had a minor impact, consistent with the fact that these countries exchange goods with similar factor intensity. Several interrelated forces are at play, although their relative importance remains a subject of much debate: faster productivity growth in manufacturing relative to services, changing natural and human resource endowments and factor prices, outsourcing, capital accumulation in the South and trade liberalization.⁽²⁾

2.1. Relocating employment to
low-cost countries

International outsourcing in the manufacture of machinery (electrical and non-electrical) is reflected in the growing share in world employment of countries other than high-income OECD nations, while the share of the former group in total world net output (measured as value added in current US dollars) has fallen. Geographic distribution, however, remains sharply contrasted. High-income OECD countries account for a third of world employment, but over two-thirds of total net output. The shares for various groups of countries, classified by levels of income, are shown in figure 2.1. The employment charts in figure 2.1, however, are not quite comparable with the value added charts with respect to their geographic coverage. Data on value added were missing for several countries, most notably the former USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, which jointly account for about a quarter of world employment. To facilitate comparisons, these countries have been included in the group "others." As a result, the shares in total net output of other regions are somewhat overstated in the charts.

Eastern Europe and Asia have been the main beneficiaries of the shift in the geography of production during this period. Western manufacturers are increasingly producing the lower part of their product range in Eastern European countries, where production costs are low. The Japanese industry is using nearby developing Asian nations in a similar manner to build regional production networks, especially in electrical machinery (inclusive of electronics).⁽³⁾ At the international level, in 1996, 23 of the top 30 companies in the machine tool industry had operations outside their home country; nine were producing in more than four countries.⁽⁴⁾

Bearing in mind the shortcomings in the geographic coverage of the data, between 1980 and 1992, the latest year for which comprehensive international data are available, total world employment in the sector increased by 12 per cent (4.6 million jobs) and production by 113 per cent (measured as value added in current US dollars). The employment increase was accompanied by an important shift in favour of low-income countries in particular. High-income OECD countries reduced their share in world total employment from 36 to 30 per cent and maintained their share in total net output at 89-90 per cent. Low-income countries increased their share in world employment from 22 to 32 per cent, although their share in net output fell from 3.7 to 2.5 per cent. These figures, which amplify the information in figure 2.1, are reported in table 2.1.

The largest employment loss in the sector, of 832,000 between 1980 and 1992, was registered in high-income OECD countries, consistent with the long-term decline of manufacturing employment in the region. This decline occurred primarily during the economic downturns of the early 1980s and early 1990s. Middle-income countries experienced a decrease in employment over the period of about the same absolute amount -- substantially larger than high-income OECD countries in percentage terms. Conversely, other groups of countries expanded employment over the period.

Table 2.1. Geographical distribution of employment and production
(measured as value added) in the manufacture of machinery
(ISIC 382-383), 1980 and 1992 (per cent of world total)¹


Employment in the machinery industry (ISIC 382-383, Rev.2)						Value added in the machinery industry (ISIC 382-383, Rev.2) (current US$)
Region	1980		1992		1980-92	Region	1980		1992
	Thousands	% of total	Thousands	% of total	% change		Millions	% of total	Millions	% of total

HIO	14 348	35.9	13 516	30.3	-5.8	HIO	460 254	89.3	987 823	90.0
HINO	1 544	3.9	1 787	4.0	15.7	HINO	5 796	1.1	26 183	2.4
MIU	1 713	4.3	1 436	3.2	-16.2	MIU	15 085	2.9	31 918	2.9
MIL	2 545	6.4	2 010	4.5	-21.0	MIL	15 042	2.9	24 030	2.2
LI	8 604	21.5	14 269	32.0	65.8	LI	19 123	3.7	27 926	2.5
OTH	11 267	28.2	11 612	26.0	3.1	OTH	-	-	-	-
Total	40 021	100.0	44 630	100.0	11.5	Total	515 301	100.0	1 097 880	100.0


Employment in machinery, except electrical (ISIC 382, Rev.2)						Value added in machinery, except electrical (ISIC 382, Rev.2) (current US$)
Region	1980		1992		1980-92	Region	1980		1992
	Thousands	% of total	Thousands	% of total	% change		Millions	% of total	Millions	% of total

HIO	7 509	29.5	6 897	25.5	-8.2	HIO	252 066	88.6	507 034	91.0
HINO	638	2.5	813	3.0	27.4	HINO	1 205	0.4	8 482	1.5
MIU	955	3.8	607	2.2	-36.5	MIU	7 577	2.7	13 932	2.5
MIL	1 716	6.7	1 169	4.3	-31.9	MIL	8 994	3.2	12 140	2.2
LI	6 719	26.4	10 181	37.6	51.5	LI	14 649	5.1	15 820	2.8
OTH	7 899	31.1	7 410	27.4	-6.2	OTH	-	-	-	-
Total	25 436	100.0	27 076	100.0	6.4	Total	284 491	100.0	557 407	100.0


Employment in electrical machinery (ISIC 383, Rev.2)						Value added in electrical machinery (ISIC 383, Rev.2) (current US$)
Region	1980		1992		1980-92	Region	1980		1992
	Thousands	% of total	Thousands	% of total	% change		Millions	% of total	Millions	% of total

HIO	6 839	46.9	6 619	37.7	-3.2	HIO	208 188	90.2	480 789	89.0
HINO	906	6.2	974	5.5	7.5	HINO	4 591	2.0	17 701	3.3
MIU	758	5.2	829	4.7	9.3	MIU	7 508	3.3	17 986	3.3
MIL	829	5.7	842	4.8	1.5	MIL	6 048	2.6	11 890	2.2
LI	1 885	12.9	4 088	23.3	116.9	LI	4 474	1.9	12 107	2.2
OTH	3 368	23.1	4 202	23.9	24.8	OTH	-	-	-	-
Total	14 585	100.0	17 554	100.0	20.4	Total	230 809	100.0	540 473	100.0
¹ HIO = high-income OECD; HINO = high-income non-OECD; MIU = middle income (upper); MIL = middle income (lower); LI = low income; OTH = others, which for the present purpose include former Czechoslovakia, former Yugoslavia and former USSR. See also notes of figure 2.1.
Source: ibid.

Between 1990 and 1997, the employment record remained rather poor in both subsectors in high-income OECD countries, but was better in electrical than in non-electrical machinery; the incidence of employment losses was still somewhat higher in the nineties than in the eighties in both subsectors, but more so for non-electrical machinery. Nearly a dozen countries were able to regain or surpass the 1990 levels of employment in one or both subsectors: in non-electrical machinery, in decreasing order, the Republic of Korea, Canada, Ireland, the United States, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom; and in electrical machinery, Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Italy, New Zealand, the United States and the Republic of Korea (see tables 2.2 and 2.3). There were signs of a recovery, or at least a respite in the decline, in another four cases (Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland). Thus, between 1992 and 1997, the United States added 411,000 jobs in this sector, to reach a total of 3.8 million employees in November 1997.⁽⁵⁾ Strong growth was also registered in the Republic of Korea, which created 117,000 jobs between 1992 and 1995, followed by the United Kingdom with 85,000 jobs and Canada with 14,600 jobs (see table L, The industry in numbers).⁽⁶⁾ But this still fails to fully offset the employment loss the high-income OECD countries have experienced during the 1980-92 period. Further, nearly three-quarters of leading firms in the machinery industry expanded employment between 1996 and 1997, according to the Financial Times' Global 500 list (see table 2.4), which ranks companies according to the market value of their shares; however, 44 per cent are American and 33 per cent Japanese.

As a result of job displacements, the share of low-income countries in world employment in 1992 was the largest, at 32 per cent. In the machinery industries in general, low-income countries also created the most employment in absolute numbers; between 1980 and 1992, the number increased from 8.6 to 14.3 million jobs. In 1992, China alone accounted for nearly 30 per cent of world employment, having thus become the largest employer in the sector after several years of steady growth, followed by the countries of the former USSR with 24 per cent and the United States, which accounted for less than 8 per cent. These shares are reported in table 2.5, which provides a comprehensive cross-section for the year 1992 of the data discussed in this chapter (all the variables are expressed in current US dollars and can therefore serve to draw international comparisons; the same set of countries has been used to create the charts shown in figure 2.1). By 1994, however, China had again lost 2 million jobs; the small increase in the manufacture of electrical machinery and electronics somewhat offset the substantial loss registered in non-electrical machinery industries. This trend might continue as foreign investors reassess their investment plans based on past performance, which often fell short of expectations, and on other structural problems; the enthusiasm for Sino-foreign joint ventures has apparently cooled.⁽⁷⁾

Former centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe gained more than 0.3 million jobs between 1980 and 1989, prior to their integration in the world economy, which in the short term was catastrophic for employment and production. In the years following that integration, available evidence indicates that employment in machinery industries more or less halved in most countries of the region: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Kyrgyzstan, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. In Latvia, by 1994, production had dropped to a quarter of its pre-1989 level. In Germany, lay-offs in the engineering industry led to a further employment reduction of 60,000 between 1995 and 1997.⁽⁸⁾ Hungary seems to be the only country of the region to have registered a recovery in 1994-95 (see table L, The industry in numbers).

Table 2.2. Manufacture of machinery, except electrical, in high-income
OECD countries (ISIC 382, Rev.2), 1990-97 (1990 = 100)


Production (real value added) ¹

Country	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997 (April)

Australia²	100	96	105	113	-	-	-	-
Austria	100	95	87	79	79	85	82	81
Belgium	100	92	81	73	75	81	78	80
Canada	100	90	88	100	129	152	139	137
Denmark	100	96	98	91	95	101	97	106
Finland³	100	73	70	71	82	99	102	112
France⁴	100	90	82	72	76	78	77	82
Germany (West)	100	95	82	70	70	72	72	72
Ireland	100	91	100	101	109	151	162	183
Italy	100	83	74	80	86	99	94	96
Japan	100	98	83	73	73	77	82	81
Korea, Rep. of	100	135	131	147	170	198	-	-
Luxembourg⁵	100	106	88	80	77	79	87	75
Netherlands	100	96	93	88	92	97	102	101
New Zealand	100	102	105	-	-	-	-	-
Norway	100	96	106	108	112	102	-	-
Portugal	100	79	64	58	55	53	58	69
Spain	100	78	73	67	70	78	77	90
Sweden	100	82	74	67	76	86	82	81
Switzerland	100	97	92	83	83	-	-	-
United Kingdom	100	73	83	83	90	91	89	82
United States	100	93	99	107	111	123	133	142

Employment

Country	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997 (April)

Australia	100	97	90	-	-	-	-	-
Austria	100	102	99	94	91	91	-	-
Belgium	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Canada	100	79	80	88	98	117	128	145
Denmark	100	95	94	86	-	-	-	-
Finland	100	87	76	73	77	85	-	-
France	100	99	95	89	87	-	-	-
Germany⁶	-	98	93	93	83	-	-	-
Ireland	100	98	101	102	109	120	125	-
Italy	100	99	96	96	-	-	-	-
Japan	100	102	103	98	94	92	91	-
Korea, Rep. of	100	124	119	130	139	154	-	-
Luxembourg⁵	100	99	97	92	87	85	87	87
Netherlands	100	102	102	96	96	95	-	-
New Zealand	100	92	87	89	101	-	-	-
Norway	100	90	93	95	95	100	-	-
Portugal	100	95	94	114	100	-	-	-
Spain	100	98	92	90	90	86	-	-
Sweden	100	89	75	70	69	73	76	-
Switzerland⁷	100	98	91	86	80	80	80	-
United Kingdom	100	93	89	91	96	98	-	-
United States	100	95	91	93	98	103	105	107
¹ Value added in national currency, adjusted with the GDP deflator. ² Including 383, and since 1993 also 385, but in 1994 series were suspended. ³ Excluding 3825 in 1990. ⁴ Since 1994, excluding 3825. ⁵ Excluding 3825. ⁶ Since 1991, includes East and West Germany. ⁷ Since 1991, including 384.
Source: Elaborated from OECD, Indicators of Industrial Activity (Paris), various volumes; and the UNIDO database Industrial Statistics, 1997.

Table 2.3. Manufacture of electrical machinery in high-income
OECD countries (ISIC 383, Rev.2), 1990-97 (1990 = 100)


Production (real value added)¹

Country	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997 (April)

Australia	100	102	107	-	-	-	-	-
Austria	100	102	96	94	97	101	104	102
Belgium	100	94	86	82	-	-	-	-
Canada	100	93	93	93	102	113	118	128
Denmark²	100	97	93	90	109	118	131	117
Finland	100	89	112	142	188	245	265	301
France	100	94	90	85	93	97	96	100
Germany (West)	100	101	93	85	90	92	94	98
Ireland	100	105	116	123	154	212	224	217
Italy	100	92	83	83	84	86	82	88
Japan	100	108	93	91	99	111	119	126
Korea, Rep. of	100	99	101	119	150	175	-	-
Luxembourg³	100	106	102	77	81	95	90	96
Netherlands⁴	100	97	93	91	98	100	101	105
New Zealand	100	98	101	-	-	-	-	-
Norway	100	92	94	98	104	109	-	-
Portugal	100	92	85	78	75	85	85	90
Spain	100	83	80	81	86	92	91	100
Sweden⁴	100	92	98	100	124	170	215	223
Switzerland	100	90	84	81	83	-	-	-
United Kingdom	100	96	81	80	85	88	87	80
United States	100	97	102	109	128	147	159	167

Employment

Country	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997 (April)

Australia	100	92	85	-	-	-	-	-
Austria	100	100	96	91	89	89	-	-
Belgium	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Canada	100	84	77	75	76	81	83	87
Denmark	100	87	80	71	-	-	-	-
Finland	100	95	82	78	86	107	-	-
France	100	99	94	89	88	-	-	-
Germany⁵	-	100	95	92	85	-	-	-
Ireland	100	100	104	108	118	131	141	-
Italy	100	99	100	101	-	-	-	-
Japan	100	103	103	100	96	94	91	91
Korea, Rep. of	100	90	87	88	91	97	-	-
Luxembourg³	100	106	118	124	132	145	156	162
Netherlands	100	91	89	76	76	76	-	-
New Zealand	100	96	88	89	100	-	-	-
Norway	100	100	98	91	106	109	-	-
Portugal	100	105	99	82	79	-	-	-
Spain	100	99	96	95	91	87	-	-
Sweden	100	84	82	68	73	-	-	-
Switzerland⁶	100	101	91	88	83	82	81	-
United Kingdom	100	92	85	76	80	87	93	90
United States	100	95	92	92	96	99	100	99
¹ Value added in national currency, adjusted with the GDP deflator. ² Since 1994, including 385. ³ Including 3825 and 385. ⁴ Since 1994, excluding 3833. ⁵ Since 1991, includes East and West Germany. ⁶ Since 1991, including 385, except 3853.
Source: ibid.

Table 2.4. Machinery and electrical companies in the Financial Times Global 500, 1996-97

Rank
1997

Rank
1996

Company

Country or area¹

Market capitalization
(million US$)²

Number of employees

Sector code³

1996-97

Year earlier

% change 1996-97

General Electric

222 748.3

239 000

222 000

7.7

541

Intel Corp.

150 837.8

48 500

41 600

16.6

551

Intl. Business Machines Corp.

104 119.6

240 615

225 350

6.8

531

Hewlett-Packard Co.

72 227.8

112 000

102 300

9.5

531

171

Compaq Computer Corp.

56 585.8

18 863

17 060

10.6

531

Cisco Systems Inc.

49 008.4

11 000

8 782

25.3

533

Ericsson LM

46 174.0

89 391

80 338

11.3

533

Motorola Inc.

42 789.2

139 000

142 000

-2.1

551

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

38 099.2

270 651

265 538

1.9

551

Siemens

37 357.7

378 800

376 100

0.7

541

Sony Corporation

37 171.3

163 000

151 000

7.9

402

491

Dell Computer Corp.

32 046.3

10 350

8 400

23.2

531

102

248

Philips

29 015.5

272 270

263 554

3.3

541

103

Hitachi

28 998.8

330 152

331 673

-0.5

551

108

226

Nokia

28 145.0

31 766

31 948

-0.6

551

116

170

Xerox Corp.

27 342.0

86 700

85 200

1.8

534

122

121

ABB Group

CH/S

26 483.9

214 894

209 637

2.5

541

125

300

Texas Instruments Inc.

26 147.3

59 927

59 570

0.6

551

134

133

Emerson Electric Co.

25 554.1

86 400

78 900

9.5

541

136

173

Canon Inc.

25 294.5

75 628

72 280

4.6

534

148

160

Fujitsu

23 234.6

167 000

165 056

1.2

531

169

220

Alcatel Alsthom

21 275.6

190 600

191 830

0.6

533

181

207

Caterpillar

20 080.0

57 026

54 350

4.9

564

186

151

NEC Corporation

19 423.0

151 966

152 719

0.5

551

190

Taiwan Semiconductor

Taiwan, China

19 063.1

4 117

3 412

20.7

531

208

316

3Com Corp.

17 729.9

7 109

5 190

37.0

533

209

431

Westinghouse Electric Corp.

17 503.9

52 945

77 810

-32.0

541

210

172

General Electric Company

17 472.0

79 846

82 967

-3.8

551

214

Applied Materials

17 362.6

11 403

10 504

8.5

566

215

264

Sun Microsystems

17 343.2

21 500

17 407

23.5

531

216

217

Mannesmann

17 341.2

120 467

122 684

-1.8

563

228

109

Toshiba Corporation

16 300.1

186 000

-2.1

551

265

EMC Corp.

14 401.8

4 800

4 100

17.1

531

281

282

Deere & Co.

13 551.0

33 919

33 380

1.6

565

288

457

Rohm

13 404.2

12 614

13 739

-8.2

551

322

224

Kyocera Corporation

12 406.2

40 000

31 000

29.0

551

332

427

Pitney Bowes Inc.

12 002.3

28 625

27 720

3.3

534

335

399

TDK Corporation

11 901.8

28 055

29 070

-3.5

402

343

392

AMP

11 764.1

44 985

40 800

10.3

541

378

United Micro Electronics

Taiwan, China

10 692.8

2 750

2 982

-7.8

551

383

Tokyo Electron

10 461.8

6 277

5 616

11.8

551

392

145

Sharp Corporation

10 252.6

45 117

44 789

0.7

402

393

386

Murata Manufacturing

10 218.9

4 263

4 095

4.1

551

405

498

Ricoh

10 027.3

12 895

13 109

-1.6

534

428

Tellabs Inc.

9 346.0

3 418

2 810

21.6

533

443

375

Fanuc

9 095.3

2 089

2 121

-1.5

552

460

Advantest Corporation

8 874.6

1 359

1 285

5.8

552

461

Seagate Technology

8 864.9

111 000

87 000

27.6

531

464

Sandvik

8 776.7

30 249

29 862

1.3

562

475

416

Honeywell Inc.

8 552.2

53 000

50 100

5.8

552

480

199

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

8 438.4

113 353

111 585

1.6

551

497

Clevo

Taiwan, China

8 094.2

1 500

551

^a Parent company account.
1 CH = Switzerland; D= Germany; F = France; J = Japan; NL = Netherlands; S = Sweden; SF = Finland.
2 Market capitalization is calculated as the number of shares the company has an issue, multiplied by the market price of those shares on the day the snapshot is taken. Thus, companies without a stock market listing are excluded, leaving out large family and state-owned businesses. In general, preference capital has been excluded, as well as companies that have only a minimal proportion of their capital openly traded on the market or in which more than 80 per cent of the equity is held by another concern.
There are several ways to measure corporate size. A common method ranks companies by their annual revenues, an approach pioneered by Fortune magazine in its American Fortune 500. A drawback to this approach is that it does not allow proper representation for banks and other financial services companies. It also tends to exaggerate the importance of companies with very high turnover, relative to profits, such as some trading businesses. Similar criticisms apply to rankings based on the number of employees. Companies can also be ranked by profits, but the problem here is the underrepresentation of groups which have taken one-time write-offs, which distort their performance for a particular year, or which have moved into loss. All these methods suffer from a timing problem: they are based on information in annual reports, publication of which is staggered throughout the year. Comparisons, therefore, are not between like and like.
Market capitalization overcomes many of these problems: it is taken at a single point in time; it includes loss-makers; it gives a proper weighting to financial service companies. It also has the advantage of being forward-looking: share prices incorporate investors' expectations about a company's prospects. But, like any device, it has drawbacks, which have been noted above.

3 Sector codes:

Household durables and appliances
Computers
Communications equipment
Office equipment
Electrical equipment
Electronics
Instrumentation/control equipment
Machine tools
Machinery
Machinery -- construction
Machinery -- farm equipment
Machinery -- industrial/speciality

402
531
533
534
541
551
552
562
563
564
565
566

Source: Financial Times, Supplement, 22 Jan. 1998, pp. 1-14; and supplementary data provided to the ILO by the Financial Times in a communication of 7 Apr. 1998.

Table 2.5. International comparisons in the manufacture of machinery (ISIC 382-383, Rev.2),
1992 (current US$)¹


Country or area²	Employment			Value added (VA)			Value added per employee		Wages per employee³		Labour's share (% of VA)⁴
Country or area²	Number		% of total	Millions		% of total	Value added per employee		Wages per employee³		Labour's share (% of VA)⁴

High income OECD	13 516 211		30.285	987 823.0		89.975	73 084		32 959		44.9
Australia	109 000		10.244	5 768.6		0.525	52 923		22 133		41.8
Austria	142 000		0.318	7 392.0		0.673	52 057		33 162		63.7
Canada	238 000		0.533	13 378.0		1.219	56 210		28 859		51.3
Denmark	101 952		0.228	4 737.9		0.432	46 472		34 119		73.4
Finland	67 300		0.151	3 571.9		0.325	53 074		27 253		51.3
France	877 600		1.966	51 784.2		4.717	59 007		41 438		70.2
Germany (West)	2 138 259		4.791	169 322.7	^d	15.423	79 187		37 954		47.9	^d
Ireland	39 505		0.089	4 951.7		0.451	125 343		24 677		19.7
Italy	629 096		1.410	35 554.1		3.238	56 516		40 356		71.4
Japan	3 220 000		7.215	291 259.4		26.529	90 453		34 464		38.1
Korea, Republic of	640 694		1.436	25 791.2		2.349	40 255		11 964		29.7
Luxembourg	4 600		0.010	242.8		0.022	52 782		34 079		64.6
Netherlands	180 363		0.404	9 677.0		0.881	53 653		33 424		62.3
New Zealand	21 075		0.047	583.8		0.053	27 703		16 571		59.8
Norway	48 188		0.108	2 569.5		0.234	53 322		46 437		87.1
Portugal	50 227		0.113	1 629.7		0.148	32 446		12 619		38.9
Spain	233 015		0.522	11 495.6		1.047	49 334		24 826		50.3
Sweden	153 637		0.344	8 443.7		0.769	54 958		31 656		57.6
Switzerland	269 700		0.604	15 812.1		1.440	58 629		-		-
United Kingdom	937 000		2.099	49 809.2		4.537	53 158		27 001		50.8
United States	3 415 000		7.652	274 048.0		24.962	80 248		32 039		39.9

High income non-OECD	1 786 587		4.003	26 182.8		2.385	31 485		14 066		44.7
Cyprus	1 996		0.004	41.0		0.004	20 538		11 428		55.6
Germany (East)	955 000	^b	2.140	-		-	-		-		-
Hong Kong	92 500		0.207	2 471.8		0.225	26 722		11 889		44.5
Israel	55 000		0.123	2 718.1		0.248	49 419		33 434		67.7
Kuwait	5 086		0.011	71.8		0.007	14 117		6 793		48.1
Macau	743		0.002	6.8		0.001	9 186		4 799		52.2
Singapore	168 528		0.378	7 022.8		0.640	41 671		13 505		32.4
Taiwan, China	507 734		1.138	13 850.5		1.262	27 279		12 648		46.4

Middle income (upper)	1 435 945		3.217	31 918.0		2.907	22 514		7 398		32.9
Argentina	87 241	^e	0.195	2 849.1	^e	0.260	32 658	^e	14 532	^e	44.5	^e
Barbados	420		0.001	5.1		0.000	12 095		6 919		57.2
Brazil	512 875		1.149	17 652.0		1.608	34 418		8 486		24.7
Chile	16 844		0.038	371.1		0.034	22 031		9 007		40.9
Greece	19 916		0.045	714.2		0.065	35 862		13 091		36.5
Hungary	162 000		0.363	912.8		0.083	5 635		3 200		56.8
Malaysia	317 800		0.712	4 207.8		0.383	13 240		3 899		29.4
Malta	3 151		0.007	78.6		0.007	24 930		12 288		49.3
Mauritius	1 456		0.003	6.9		0.001	4 766		3 802		79.8
Mexico	120 722		0.270	2 219.8		0.202	18 387		6 302		34.3
Puerto Rico	18 250		0.041	-		-	-		-		-
South Africa	167 000		0.374	2 772.2		0.253	16 600		11 065		66.7
Trinidad and Tobago	1 631		0.004	14.8		0.001	9 045		6 238		69.0
Uruguay	6 639		0.015	113.6		0.010	17 114		4 830		28.2

Middle income (lower)	2 010 324		4.504	24 030.1		2.189	13 521		2 580		19.1
Algeria	21 691		0.049	308.6		0.028	14 228		4 058		28.5
Bolivia	708		0.002	4.4		0.000	6 247		1 528		24.5
Bulgaria	217 100		0.486	-		-	-		-		-
Colombia	38 552		0.086	432.5		0.039	11 219		2 440		21.8
Costa Rica	9 353		0.021	72.1		0.007	7 714		3 416		44.3
Ecuador	4 876		0.011	39.0		0.004	8 002		3 389		42.4
Egypt	70 600		0.158	291.3		0.027	4 125		1 802		43.7
El Salvador	648		0.001	20.4	^e	0.002	31 420	^e	5 057	^e	16.1	^e
Indonesia	120 698		0.270	1 208.1		0.110	10 010		1 188		11.9
Iran, Islamic Rep. of	75 538		0.169	1 115.9		0.102	14 772		5 203		35.2
Iraq	16 000		0.036	-		-	-		-		-
Jordan	1 312		0.003	22.1		0.002	16 847		4 062		24.1
Morocco	17 855		0.040	174.5	^e	0.016	9 758	^e	5 418		51.9	^e
Panama	161		0.000	4.3		0.000	26 810		5 722		21.3
Peru	15 196		0.034	232.1		0.021	15 277		4 116		26.9
Philippines	122 700		0.275	1 137.8		0.104	9 273		2 804		30.2
Poland	442 000		0.990	2 286.4		0.208	5 173		2 485		48.0
Romania	567 000		1.270	886.2		0.081	1 563		743		47.6
Thailand	132 597	^d	0.297	11 470.0	^d	1.045	86 503	^d	4 091	^d	4.7	^d
Tunisia	12 463	^e	0.028	150.0		0.014	11 743	^e	5 429	^e	46.3
Turkey	86 876		0.195	3 608.5		0.329	41 536		10 070		24.2
Venezuela	36 400		0.082	565.8		0.052	15 544		4 696		30.2

Low income	14 269 006		31.972	27 926.3		2.544	1 957		518		25.2
Bangladesh	19 615		0.044	39.6		0.004	2 020		788		39.0
China	13 280 000		29.756	23 557.1		2.146	1 774		390	^a	21.9	^a
Honduras	1 223		0.003	8.2		0.001	6 699		3 129		46.7
India	907 569		2.034	3 827.5		0.349	4 217		1 579		37.5
Kenya	4 250		0.010	47.8		0.004	11 247		1 952		17.4
Pakistan	43 698		0.098	334.4		0.030	7 652		2 634		34.4
Senegal	464		0.001	5.1		0.000	10 959		7 434		67.8
Sri Lanka	3 487		0.008	24.1		0.002	6 902		948		13.7
Zimbabwe	8 700		0.019	82.6		0.008	9 495		2 829		29.8

Others	11 612 000		26.018
Czechoslovakia (former)	569 000	^d	1.275	-		-	-		-		-
Yugoslavia (former)	441 000	^b	0.988	-		-	-		-		-
USSR (former)	10 602 000	^c	23.755	-		-	-		-		-

Total	44 630 073		100.000	1 097 880.2		100.000

a 1986. b 1989. c 1990. d 1991. e 1993. 1 Exchange rates and arrears used are the average-period rates calculated by the IMF-IBRD; they are listed in table V, The industry in numbers. 2 This set of countries and areas was used to calculate employment and production shares shown in table 2.1 and figure 2.1. 3 Wages correspond to earnings in the concepts used by the ILO. Earnings include overtime payments and other bonuses, but exclude severance and termination pay, as well as employers' contributions on behalf of their employees paid to social security and pension schemes. 4 Wages (total) as a percentage of total value added (i.e. labour's shares) have been calculated independently of the figures per employee shown in the table. Source: Elaborated from the UNIDO database Industrial Statistics, 1997.

2.2. Moving into high-technology employment

The relocation of employment to low-wage countries has been most substantial in the "low-tech" subsectors of the machinery industries. In the OECD, employment has expanded since the 1970s in high-technology, high-wage and science-based manufacturing industries, in sharp contrast with the stagnation in medium-technology sectors and the job losses in low-technology, low-wage and labour-intensive industries. With few exceptions, countries of the region have tended to shift out of the latter type of industries into medium- and high-technology manufacturing employment.⁽⁹⁾ Thus, employment expanded rapidly in computers, whereas it declined in non-electrical machinery. But the shares of machinery industries in total manufacturing employment, shown in figure 2.2, declined more frequently in electrical than in non-electrical machinery, although the former represents a smaller percentage change for the OECD as a whole (-0.04 per cent against -0.30 per cent in non-electrical machinery between 1985 and 1994). By 1994, both subsectors accounted for 10.6 per cent of total manufacturing employment in the OECD.

These differences between subsectors of the machinery sector are also apparent in worldwide trends. Between 1980 and 1992, employment growth was more pronounced in electrical machinery (20 per cent) than in non-electrical machinery (6 per cent). Net output also expanded more rapidly in the former group of industries (134 per cent in current US$) than in non-electrical machinery (96 per cent).

Between 1980 and 1992, high-income OECD countries experienced most of their overall employment loss in non-electrical machinery manufacturing (0.6 million jobs, against 0.2 million in electrical machinery). The shift of employment to low-income countries was especially marked in that set of industries, in which they gained 3.5 million jobs. Non-OECD high-income countries were the only other group of countries that also experienced employment creation in non-electrical machinery manufacturing (less than 0.2 million). Conversely, in the manufacture of electrical machinery employment relocation was more diffuse: it grew in all regions, although most new jobs (2.2 million) were again created in low-income countries. Finally, a sectoral shift can be observed in middle-income countries; they experienced a decrease in employment in non-electrical machinery (0.9 million) which was somewhat offset by a small gain in electrical machinery (84,000 jobs). Similarly, the former centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe registered a loss of nearly 0.5 million jobs in the former industries, compensated by a gain of more than 0.8 million in the latter.

The relocation of jobs has accelerated in the 1990s; employment losses have been more frequent in the 1990s than in the 1980s, especially in non-electrical machinery and in high-income OECD countries. This is consistent with the findings of other studies. In the 1990s, the shift in the structural composition of employment (both economy-wide and within manufacturing) has accelerated in almost all OECD countries after a slowdown in the 1980s. The United States was the first G7 country to restructure its manufacturing activities, while continental European countries such as France and Germany are only now beginning to undertake this kind of transformation, which entails large employment shifts between industries.⁽¹⁰⁾

These interregional shifts, however, mask important variations within groups. In non-electrical machinery industries, the countries that experienced the fastest (annual) employment growth over the 1970-95 period are, in decreasing order, Thailand (13.6 per cent), Singapore (13.1 per cent), Jordan (12.6 per cent) and Mexico (10.6 per cent); and for the OECD, the Republic of Korea (10.7 per cent), Ireland (7.5 per cent) and Norway (2.0 per cent). The highest (annual) rate of job destruction is found in Slovenia (-7.6 per cent), Hungary (-3.1 per cent), Sri Lanka (-3.0 per cent) and the United Kingdom (-2.3 per cent). In electrical machinery, the fastest (annual) growth occurred again in Jordan (12.0 per cent), and in Malaysia (21.9 per cent), Indonesia (16.7 per cent) and Costa Rica (16.7 per cent); and for the OECD, again in the Republic of Korea (10.2 per cent) and Ireland (4.2 per cent), but also Luxembourg (6.2 per cent). Countries that experienced the fastest (annual) rate of job destruction are again Slovenia (-6.6 per cent), in addition to Australia (-3.0 per cent), Chile (-3.1 per cent) and Hungary (-2.9 per cent) (see table Q, The industry in numbers).

2.3. Output continues to expand, especially
in high-income OECD countries

Between 1980 and 1992, net output (value added) increased for all regions (see table 2.1). High-income OECD countries registered the largest absolute increase with a gain of US$527.5 billion at current exchange rates, while their share in the world total remained nearly the same. Non-OECD high-income countries gained $20.4 billion, upper middle-income countries $16.8 billion, lower middle-income countries $9.0 billion and low-income countries $8.8 billion. Growth was strongest in electrical machinery for all groups of countries.

In 1992, the single largest producer was Japan, accounting for 27 per cent of world production in machinery industries, followed by the United States (25 per cent) and Western Germany (15 per cent) (see table 2.4). The early nineties were years of recession. In 1994-95, some countries began to recover. Thus, in high-income OECD countries, in electrical machinery, production adjusted for inflation had surpassed 1990 levels in 11 countries by 1997. Growth was strongest in Finland, followed by Sweden and Ireland. Austria, France, Western Germany, Luxembourg and Spain more or less reached 1990 levels, while Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland and the United Kingdom were still below them. Expansion was less pronounced in non-electrical machinery. Only eight countries were able to surpass 1990 levels by 1997. Growth was strongest in the Republic of Korea, followed by Ireland and the United States. Again Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, but also Austria, France, Western Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden were still below 1990 levels, while Italy, the Netherlands and Norway had more or less recovered them (see tables 2.2 and 2.3).

In the rest of the world, between 1970 and 1995, the fastest (annual) growth in net output for non-electrical machinery was registered in Bolivia (34 per cent, but starting from a low base), Thailand (29.6 per cent), Jordan (22.2 per cent), Singapore (21.4 per cent) and Indonesia (20.1 per cent). Some countries were expanding their production rapidly in both sets of industries. Thus, for electrical machinery, the fastest (annual) expansion occurred again in Thailand (36.2 per cent), Indonesia (25.7 per cent), Bolivia (13.7 per cent) and Singapore (13.6 per cent), as well as Malaysia (23.2 per cent), China (16.3 per cent) and Malta (14.9 per cent).

Although production generally increased between 1970 and 1995, this masks a globally worse performance in the 1990s compared to the 1980s. In spite of some bright spots (see below) net output declined more frequently in the nineties; this was especially the case in non-electrical machinery in high-income OECD countries, consistent with the globally slower growth of these industries and the sizeable relocation of production to the South. A few countries however registered a net loss for the overall 1970-95 period. In these cases both sets of industries were usually affected. In non-electrical machinery, the (annual) decrease was most pronounced in Romania (-26.1 per cent over five years), Brazil (-11.8 per cent), Panama (-5.7 per cent), Sri Lanka (-4.7 per cent), Slovenia (-3.7 per cent) and Israel (-3.2 per cent). In electrical machinery, the (annual) rate of decline was most rapid again in Romania (-20.1 per cent per year), Brazil (-5.6 per cent) and Slovenia (-4.4 per cent), in addition to Chile (-3.3 per cent) and Turkey (-2.6 per cent) (see table Q, The industry in numbers).

2.4. Labour-saving expansionary growth
in high-income OECD countries

With classical patterns of adjustment, output and employment would be expected to move in the same direction, in spite of lags in the adjustment process. Generally, this was indeed the case over the 1970-95 period, especially in the manufacture of electrical machinery and electronics. But output declined less frequently than employment, both in the 1980s and in the 1990s. This reduction in job intensity could be due to rationalization, which seeks to reduce unit labour costs through capital deepening (the capital-labour ratio increases) or to expansionary labour-saving process innovations, which endeavour to increase output and capital widening (the capital-labour ratio remains the same).⁽¹¹⁾

There is no agreement, however, on whether new technologies and associated process innovations have an expansionary impact on employment and productivity (see also Chapter 8). The direct labour-saving impact might be swamped by an indirect compensation mechanism that has an expansionary effect on employment. For instance, new technology, in raising productivity and output, may lower prices -- or firms can offer new products, of a higher quality and a wider range, thus improving competitiveness and creating employment. In the past, the introduction of new technologies, in particular information technology (IT), often resulted in a productivity slowdown (a phenomenon known to economists as the Solow Paradox). But this slowdown might be overstated because of time lags in the process of adjustment and shortcomings in measuring productivity (for example a fall in product prices, due to an expansion in the volume of production, will understate productivity increments measured in value). Moreover, factors pertaining to organizational structure, skills, workers' training and managerial abilities are also put forward to explain this apparent contradiction. The institutional context and the organization of firms determine the effectiveness and impact of new technologies and of organizational change itself.⁽¹²⁾

With the present set of data, expansionary labour-saving restructuring would presumably show as an increment in output and a simultaneous reduction of employment. Output (value added) per person would also rise, and labour's earnings could be expected to increase; if not, restructuring would not really benefit workers. Output per person, however, does not actually measure labour productivity, which refers to labour's production on an hourly basis. An increase in output per person might therefore mean either that labour productivity is rising, or that workers work longer hours owing to an increment in overtime and/or a reduction in the proportion of part-time employees in the total labour force.

Patterns pointing to expansionary labour-saving restructuring could be found in several instances for the 1970-95 period. Significantly, it is much more common in high-income OECD countries, especially in electrical machinery and electronics. In these industries, this pattern can be found in Australia, Canada, Finland, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as in Ecuador, Greece and Singapore. Moreover, in the 1990s, real earnings increased rapidly in Canada, Norway, Singapore and Spain. Production and employment indices for 1990-97 reported in table 2.3 reveal that this list could be expanded: the same pattern seems to hold for Austria, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden; in Ireland, output grew considerably faster than employment.

For non-electrical machinery, during the 1970-95 period, this pattern emerges for Australia, Denmark, Spain and the United States, as well as for Ecuador, Malta and the Philippines. Wages increased substantially in the 1990s in Malta, the Philippines and Spain. In Ecuador, however, they declined in both sets of industries; labour did not benefit from the expansion of output, neither with respect to employment levels nor in terms of earnings. This pattern could also be observed in China although information on wages was not available. Again, indices for 1990-97 reported in table 2.2 suggest that New Zealand should be added to this list.

Available information on hours of work suggests that, among the cases listed above, increments in output per employee over the period can be attributed to rising labour productivity rather than to a longer working week in the following countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Norway, Singapore, Spain and the United Kingdom, and for the 1990s, Ireland, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Netherlands. In these cases, average hours actually worked decreased or remained stable, owing in part to an expansion in the proportion of part-time employment in metal manufacturing (with the exception of Denmark), as will be seen in Chapter 6.

Labour-saving expansion, however, is only one type of adjustment. The graphs in figure 2.3 illustrate the diverse range of possibilities. The trend over the period 1985-95 is shown for 24 countries which have been classified by their level of income. Four variables are represented: production (value added), employment, earnings and the share of labour in value added; production and earnings have been adjusted for inflation. Decreasing output per employee shows on the graphs as a narrowing of the vertical distance between the production and employment curves (and vice versa). Strikingly, in Asian countries production has generally grown much more rapidly than earnings. Conversely, in North America and European countries (plus Israel and Japan) no such pattern can be observed, although in North America the gap has widened in recent years.

2.5. Increasing real wages and
output per employee

Parallel to this expansion of output, real wages also generally increased over the period 1970-95. The growth rate was highest in Bolivia, Pakistan, Chile, Malta, Indonesia, Cyprus, Singapore and Thailand; among OECD countries, the Republic of Korea, Italy and Ireland performed best (see table Q, The industry in numbers). However, there were a few exceptions. The decline of wages was especially pronounced for Romania, Kenya, Mexico, Bangladesh, Panama and Algeria.

As would be expected, the drop in real wages over the period was generally associated with a deterioration in the growth of output, especially for non-electrical machinery, which had substantially relocated employment to low-income countries. Notable exceptions are Venezuela and Ecuador in non-electrical machinery and, in electrical machinery, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Kenya, where output was expanding. Conversely, decreasing output (value added) per person was not associated with any particular movement in real wages, either upward or downward. Moreover, in both sets of industries, output per person increased more rapidly (or fell less) than real wages in just over half the cases. This points to a generally sluggish adjustment of real wages in both directions, although they tended to display more downward stickiness in electrical machinery. As a result, the incidence of wage reductions was nonetheless globally comparable in the 1980s and 1990s, even though output and employment declined more frequently in the latter years.

From 1970 to 1995, in non-electrical machinery industries, output (value added) per person expanded most rapidly in Bolivia, followed by Thailand, Indonesia, Ireland, the Republic of Korea, Malta, Pakistan and Malaysia; and for electrical machinery, in Thailand, followed by China, Malta, the Republic of Korea, Ireland and Indonesia.

The sectoral and regional shifts that were highlighted at the beginning of this chapter are also reflected in the growth patterns of wages and output per person. The relocation to the South of employment in non-electrical machinery industries resulted, between 1970 and 1995, in more rapidly increasing (or less rapidly declining) real wages in these industries, relative to electrical machinery, for lower middle-income and low-income countries; it was generally also associated with a faster increase in output per employee. But in most of these cases employment trends were more positive in the other set of industries (electrical), which globally were growing more rapidly. Conversely, in high-income and upper middle-income countries, wages and output per person were generally increasing faster in electrical than non-electrical machinery, but without any clear link to employment creation.

2.6. Labour's share in value added declines,
especially in the South

Higher real wages do not necessarily imply that labour shares proportionately in the benefits of growth. Labour's share in value added provides an indicator of how these benefits are distributed. These shares have been calculated on the basis of labour's earnings (wages), which are more directly relevant to workers, not on the basis of total labour costs, which comprise all expenditures made by employers on behalf of their staff (the shares here are thus lower than those of the OECD, which are reported in Chapter 7).

As might be expected, labour's share in value added is generally much smaller in low-income countries (see table 2.4); in 1992, it reached 25 per cent, compared to 45 per cent in high-income OECD economies. Lower middle-income countries, however, had the smallest share -- only 19 per cent. Further, these shares differ from one subsector to another. In electrical machinery manufacturing, labour's shares in low-income countries reached about half the levels prevailing in high-income OECD economies, whereas in non-electrical machinery industries they approached OECD levels (see table P, The industry in numbers). The specific gender composition of the two sectors might partly explain these differences: electrical machinery/electronics generally employs a larger share of women (see Chapter 3). These factors probably contributed to the impressive relocation of employment to low-income countries in particular.

Globally, labour's shares tended to decrease between 1970 and 1995, especially in non-electrical machinery. This tendency was most pronounced in low-income countries. In some instances labour was nonetheless able to raise its share in value added, most notably in electrical machinery in high-income non-OECD and upper middle-income countries. In the 1990s, however, the situation globally improved: labour was able to increase its share in value added more frequently than in the 1980s. Similarly, in low-income countries a clear reversal of the tendency became apparent in three cases: Bangladesh and Honduras in both sets of industries, plus Pakistan in electrical machinery. Bangladesh is the only country in this group to report a net increase over the period in both sets of industries. Thus, with respect to wages, as measured by labour's share in value added, labour in the South did not really gain from international shifts in employment.

2.7. "Best performers" ... of yesterday?

Taking account of all four indicators -- output, employment, value added per person and real wages -- the following countries experienced the fastest growth, at least until 1995. In the manufacture of electrical machinery, the best performers were: Ireland, Malaysia and the Philippines. The Republic of Korea can be added to this list, although it lost jobs in the nineties. So can China, for which information on wages is missing, as well as Malta and Indonesia, which experienced a loss of output per person in the nineties. In the manufacture of non-electrical machinery, the best performers were again Ireland, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia, in addition to Singapore. But over the 1970-95 period labour's share in value added decreased in almost all cases. In the 1990s, this share was rising, except in Singapore, and in Malaysia and the Republic of Korea in electrical machinery. This assessment, however, does not account for other (qualitative) aspects of employment.

In 1997, industrial production was still expanding steadily, especially in Indonesia, Malaysia and China. But in early 1998 several of these best performers were still struggling with the aftermath of the Asian crisis and severe devaluations of their currencies in 1997: Indonesia, where hyperinflation is looming, Malaysia, Thailand, the Republic of Korea and the Philippines. As the International Monetary Fund (IMF) put together rescue packages for the Republic of Korea, Indonesia and Thailand, the threat of global deflation seemed to recede and Asian financial markets seemed to be stabilizing. But the long-term impact on trading patterns remained uncertain. With rapidly rising prices for imported production inputs, upon which exports heavily depend, machinery manufacture may experience difficulty maintaining its current production levels. Asian imports in general have declined sharply. Some countries of the region have also reappraised their planned foreign investments in the machinery sector. Conversely, the competitive position of its exports will improve and favour import penetration abroad. This will also benefit main trading partners like Japan, which had transferred much of its production abroad, in electrical machinery in particular. On the other hand, Ireland -- the darling of the European Union -- is predicted to become the ninth fastest-growing economy in 1998 and is therefore considered to be an "emerging tiger".⁽¹³⁾

1. OECD: Technology, productivity and job creation, Vol. 2, Analytical Report (Paris, 1996), p. 144.

2. S. Seager: "Globalization and deindustrialization: Myth and reality in the OECD", in Review of World Economics, 133(4) (1997), pp. 579-608.

3. Japanese Ministry of Labour: Analysis of labour markets (Roudou keizai no bunseki) (Tokyo, 1997) (in Japanese).

4. International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF), Mechanical Engineering Department: Global trends in the machine building industry, IMF-ILO Machinery Industry Conference, Geneva, 26-28 Nov. 1997, pp. 9-10.

5. This figure relates to industries which, in the United States classification, are included under the 1987 SIC Code 35 and 36 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Website http://stats.bls.gov/, 1997).

6. M. Dessing and O. Mutter: The machinery, electrical and electronic industries in numbers, Sectoral Activities Programme Working Paper No. 121 (Geneva, ILO, 1998); hereinafter referred to as The industry in numbers.

7. Financial Times, 16 Feb. 1998, p. 2.

8. N. Schmidt: "The development of the German (mechanical) engineering industry and trade union options", Paper presented at the IMF Engineering Industry Conference, Geneva, 26 Nov. 1997, p. 4.

9. OECD: The OECD jobs study: Evidence and explanations. Part I: Labour market trends and underlying forces of change (Paris, 1994); and OECD, Technology, op. cit., p 59.

10. OECD, Technology, op. cit., pp. 54-59.

11. M. Campbell: "The employment effects of new technology and organizational change: An empirical study", in New Technology, Work and Employment, 8(2), Sep. 1993, p. 136.

12. N. Greenan: "Progrès technique et changements organisationnels: leur impact sur l'emploi et les qualifications", in Economie et statistique, 8(298), 1996, pp. 35-37; and OECD, Technology, op. cit., pp. 43-49, 131.

13. The Economist, 17-23 Jan. 1998, p. 104; and Financial Times (21 Jan. 1998, p. 6; 22 Jan. 1998, p. 1; 23 Jan. 1998, p. 5; 12 Feb. 1998, p. 11; 4 Mar. 1998, p. 14).

SECTORS | ACTIVITIES | MEETINGS | PUBLICATIONS

For further information, please contact the Sectoral Activities Department (SECTOR) at Tel: +41.22.799.7513, Fax: +41.22.799.7296 or email: sector@ilo.org

Disclaimer | webinfo@ilo.org

This page was created by BR/HK. It was approved by PB/BKN. It was last updated on 28 June 1999.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION

Sectoral Activities Programme