IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v38y2014i2p459-477..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The quality of employment and decent work: definitions, methodologies, and ongoing debates

Author

Listed:
  • Brendan Burchell
  • Kirsten Sehnbruch
  • Agnieszka Piasna
  • Nurjk Agloni

Abstract

This article explores the development of concepts related to the ‘quality of employment’ in the academic literature in terms of their definition, methodological progress and ongoing policy debates. Over time, these concepts have evolved from simple studies of job satisfaction towards more comprehensive measures of job and employment quality, including the International Labour Organization’s concept of ‘Decent Work’ launched in 1999. This article compares the parallel development of quality of employment measures in the European Union with the ILO’s Decent Work agenda and concludes that the former has advanced much further due to more consistent efforts to generate internationally comparable data on labour markets, which permit detailed measurements and international comparisons. In contrast, Decent Work remains a very broadly defined concept, which is impossible to measure across countries. We conclude by proposing three important differences between these two scenarios that have lead to such diverging paths: the lack of availability of internationally comparable data, the control over the research agenda by partisan social actors, and a prematurely mandated definition of Decent Work that is extremely vague and all-encompassing.

Suggested Citation

  • Brendan Burchell & Kirsten Sehnbruch & Agnieszka Piasna & Nurjk Agloni, 2014. "The quality of employment and decent work: definitions, methodologies, and ongoing debates," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 38(2), pages 459-477.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:38:y:2014:i:2:p:459-477.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bet067
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:38:y:2014:i:2:p:459-477.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.