Data Cart

Your data extract

0 variables
0 samples
View Cart
OCCISCO
Occupation, ISCO general

Codes and Frequencies



Can't find the category you are looking for? Try the Detailed codes

Description

OCCISCO records the person's primary occupation, coded according to the major categories in the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) scheme for 1988. For someone with more than one job, the primary occupation is typically the one in which the person had spent the most time or earned the most money.

Comparability — Index

GENERAL
Argentina
Armenia
Austria
Belarus
Bolivia
Botswana
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Fiji
France
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guinea
Haiti
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Kyrgyz Republic
Liberia
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Mexico
Morocco
Mozambique
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Palestine
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Romania
Rwanda
Saint Lucia
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Switzerland
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Zambia

Comparability — General

The classification of occupations differs across countries and within countries over time. The OCCISCO coding scheme provides a common standard to ease comparison across time and space. It is unavoidably imprecise because some samples fit the ISCO classification better than others, or provide more detailed categories. Sometimes the logic of the original classification suggested a particular interpretation of a given occupational title, but it was no more than inferential. In general, OCCISCO tends to be more comparable within countries than across countries. The detailed occupation classifications used for each census are retained unrecoded in the OCC variable.

The age of persons to whom the question applies varies across countries and changes over time for some countries. In some samples, the question applies only to persons employed at the time of the census; in others, information was gathered about the last occupation people had if unemployed or out of the labor force altogether at the time of the census.

The categories that are typically the most difficult to distinguish are service and sales workers from clerks, and craft workers from plant and machine operators. The basic issue is a lack of distinction between different skill levels of workers. The elementary workers are a relatively eclectic collection of occupational titles highly determined by the classification system in each sample.

In accordance with ISCO standards, when feasible, supervisors are placed in the major group with the persons that they supervised, unless the job title suggested higher-level managerial functions. Persons in the technician category are often not distinguishable from professionals or other groups. Some samples have a category for persons with "other" occupations that were unspecified. Also, armed forces personnel are not consistently identified across all samples.

Comparability — Argentina [top]

The 1991-2001 classifications are fundamentally different from the earlier samples and from other countries, and they could not be incorporated into OCCISCO.

Comparability — Armenia [top]

The sample uses the ISCO 1988 classification, requiring no recoding.

Comparability — Austria [top]

The 1991 and 2001 samples used the ISCO classification. The earlier samples were recoded based on occupational title. The change of classifications between 1981 and 1991 is associated with a reassignment of cases from professionals to technicians.

The source data for Austria assigned occupations to non-workers based on who "supported" them. OCCSICO reports data only for economically active persons.

Comparability — Belarus [top]

The original data for Belarus used the ISCO system, requiring no recoding.

Comparability — Bolivia [top]

The underlying data are consistent between 1992 and 2001, but the 1976 classification was notably different. The universe is fairly consistent across samples.

Comparability — Botswana [top]

The 1981 sample follows the ISCO 1968 classification system. In 1981, it was not possible to distinguish technicians from professionals due to the level of disaggregation of occupations available for the sample. The 1991-2011 samples use a classification system that is the national version of ISCO 1988.

The reference period for the 1981-1991 samples was the past month, but it changed for the 2001-2011 samples to the week prior to the census.

Comparability — Brazil [top]

The age universe is consistent across samples, but employment status and reference period for individuals included in the universe changes over time.

The 2010 sample followed the ISCO 2008 coding scheme. Earlier samples did not use the ISCO classification system and required more extensive recoding.

Comparability — Burkina Faso [top]

While the 1985 and 1996 samples used the same non-ISCO coding scheme. The codes were grouped hierarchically by industry and level of seniority. See the unharmonized source variables for full detail.

Comparability — Cambodia [top]

The original data for both Cambodia samples were coded into the ISCO system, requiring no interpretation. They report main activity last year.

Comparability — Cameroon [top]

The 1976 sample used a non-ISCO coding system, while the 2005 sample used the ISCO 1988 system.

The 1976 classification scheme is organized by industry and skill level, but it is difficult to make some distinctions required by the ISCO scheme.

Comparability — Canada [top]

The Canada sample data do not have much occupational detail (except 2011) and are based on national occupational classifications not fully equivalent to ISCO, so the coding to OCCISCO is particularly crude.

The classifications for 1971 to 1991 were quite consistent. Technicians are not identifiable in 1971-1991.

Comparability — Chile [top]

The age universe changes over time. There is a large increase in the technician category between 1992 and 2002.

Comparability — China [top]

The Chinese occupational classification was rather industrial in character: it often reported the good or service in which a person was engaged in producing without giving that person's status or precise job. It was particularly hard to identify persons who unequivocally belonged in the elementary (unskilled) occupations (code 090). Skilled agricultural and craft workers are probably inflated, and elementary workers underrepresented, in the OCCISCO classification.

The China 2000 sample has a more aggregated occupational grouping available with respect to 1982 and 1990, which produces additional comparability issues. In 2000, categories corresponding to professionals may include some of the related technical occupations. The proportion of persons in elementary occupations in 2000 is considerably smaller than previous samples; some of these cases are seemingly included in "service workers and show and market sales" or "crafts and related trades workers."

Comparability — Colombia [top]

The basic classifications of occupations for Colombia 1964 and 1973 differ, but not substantially. There is no occupation variable for 1985 and 1993.

Colombia 1973 has many undocumented values. In most cases we coded them into occupational groups on the basis of their first digit(s).

Comparability — Costa Rica [top]

The variable records the person's main occupation at the time of census or, prior to 2000, when they were last employed. OCCISCO is not available for 1963 because we lack the necessary documentation.

Comparability — Cuba [top]

The Cuba sample uses the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding.

Comparability — Dominican Republic [top]

The 1960, 1970 and 1981 samples each use a unique classification system. The 2002 and 2010 samples use the ISCO classification system.

The universe changes over time. In 1960, the question was asked of persons age 10 and older who were employed between January 1st and August 7th, 1960. In 1970, the question was asked of persons age 10 and older who were employed or unemployed the week prior to the census. In 1981-2010, the question was asked of persons age 10 and older who had ever worked. Respondents who had worked before but were not working during the week prior to the census reported their last occupation.

Comparability — Ecuador [top]

The age universe changes over time. The underlying codes from which OCCISCO was derived differ for each sample.

Comparability — Egypt [top]

The 1986 sample uses the ISCO 1968 classification, while the 1996 and 2006 samples use ISCO 1988. Thus, the data required no recoding, but the age universe of respondents changes from 15 and older in 1986-1996 to 6 and older in 2006.

Comparability — El Salvador [top]

Both samples use the ISCO classification and differ only in coverage of unemployed persons.

Comparability — Ethiopia [top]

The 1984 sample uses the ISCO 1968 classification, requiring some recoding. The 1994 sample uses ISCO 1988. The 2007 sample does not contain occupation information.

Comparability — Fiji [top]

The 1976 and 1986 samples both used the ISCO 1968 classification system. The later samples categorized occupation according the ISCO 1988 system, thus no recoding was necessary.

Comparability — France [top]

Occupations for all French samples were integrated by the French statistical office into a common classification for the years between 1962 and 1990. Because the French occupation variable is not very detailed, difficulties sometimes arose in making the data correspond with the ISCO system. During those years, the elementary workers category for France contains only agricultural workers; persons with non-agricultural occupations that elsewhere might be classified as elementary workers cannot be distinguished. The armed forces category includes police.

In 1999, the French occupations accord with the ISCO coding scheme. However, in 2006-2011 the data again change to a classification that corresponds poorly with ISCO in a number of areas. It should be considered a very rough approximation; see the unharmonized source variables for the original codes.

There is also slight variation in the age universe over time.

Comparability — Germany [top]

The samples use different classifications.

The 1981 sample (from East Germany) is highly industrial in character and often does not distinguish skill levels in a manner that is well suited to the ISCO system. It should be considered a very rough approximation; see the unharmonized source variable for the original codes.

Comparability — Ghana [top]

The 1984 and 2000 samples use the ISCO 1968 classification system. The 2010 sample uses the ISCO 1988 classification system. The universe differs slightly across samples in terms of minimum ages.

Comparability — Greece [top]

The same occupational code system was used for the 1971-1991 censuses. The 2001 census used a version of the ISCO 1988 classification, while the 2011 census occupation data are based on ISCO 2008.

Comparability — Guinea [top]

The occupation question was asked of persons age 10 and older in 1983 and of persons age 6 and older in 1996.

The 1983 and 1996 samples used different coding schemes for occupations resulting in significant OCCISCO differences from one sample to another. The occupational coding scheme used in 1996 is consistent with the major group distinctions in the ISCO classification.

Comparability — Haiti [top]

The 1982 sample used the ISCO 1968 classification system. The 2003 sample categorized occupation according the ISCO 1988 system, thus no recoding was necessary.

While the samples have the same universe, the reference period for employment is different across years.

Comparability — Hungary [top]

The occupation data in the Hungary samples are comparable, as they follow some ISCO coding structure. In 1970-1990, occupations are coded using a national classification equivalent to ISCO 1988. The 2001 sample applies ISCO 1988 and the 2011 sample uses ISCO 2008.

Comparability — India [top]

In 1983-2004, occupations are coded uniformly according to the India occupational classification system of 1968 (NCO 1968) and use the current week (preceding the census) as time reference. For these samples, other occupational unharmonized source variables (not included in OCCISCO) document the occupation worked most frequently over the past year.

The 2009 sample includes information about the usual principal occupation and applies the India occupational classification system of 2004 (NCO 2004), which is compatible with ISCO 1988.

Comparability — Indonesia [top]

The samples use the same basic underlying classification (ISCO-68) with similar universes, and are therefore highly comparable over time.

Comparability — Iran [top]

The 2006 and 2011 samples report the current occupation of employed persons aged 10 or more. The current occupation is coded using the ISCO classification. Armed forces and police officers were not differentiated, and this category is coded to armed forces.

Comparability — Ireland [top]

The universe changes significantly over time: it includes employed, and sometimes unemployed, persons from 1971 to 1991, but includes occupations for retired persons in 1996 to 2011.

The Ireland samples use a number of different occupation classifications, none of them based on ISCO. The 1986-1991 samples are coded from the same underlying classification, as are the 1996-2006 samples. The 2011 sample uses a unique classification system.

Comparability — Italy [top]

The sample used the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding.

Comparability — Jamaica [top]

All Jamaica samples use the ISCO classification; thus, apart from the universe differences the data are fully comparable.

Comparability — Jordan [top]

The sample used the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding

Comparability — Kenya [top]

The question applied to employed persons, whether at work or not, and persons on family holdings.

NOTE: Only a small fraction of persons actually reported an occupation.

Comparability — Kyrgyz Republic [top]

The sample used the ISCO classification system but includes some additional categories.

Cattlemen and subsidiary plot farmers are classified as general workers and together comprise more than one-third of the workforce.

Comparability — Liberia [top]

The 1974 sample uses the ISCO 1968 classification system. The 2008 sample uses the ISCO 1988 classification system and did not require recoding. The universe differs slightly across samples in terms of minimum ages.

Comparability — Malawi [top]

The only notable universe difference between samples is the change in age universe from 10 and older in 1987-1998 to age 6 and older in 2008.

The underlying data for the three samples use nearly identical classifications.

Comparability — Malaysia [top]

The 1970-1991 samples used the same occupational classification, and are therefore coded consistently within OCCISCO. The 2001 sample used the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding.

Comparability — Mali [top]

The samples use entirely different occupational classifications, all of which had to be recoded significantly to fit the ISCO system.

Comparability — Mexico [top]

The Mexico samples use national classifications to code occupations. The 1960 and 1970 samples used their own classification systems. The 1990-2000 samples used the same classification, while the coding structure is also common across 2010-2015 and is based on ISCO 2008.

In 1970 the question applied to the occupation the person had during the previous year, 1969, regardless of their status at the time of the census. In 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2015 the question was addressed only to employed persons.

The underlying 1995 classification is not detailed, and the resulting OCCISCO coding is therefore crude.

The 2005 Mexico census did not include an occupation question.

Comparability — Morocco [top]

The 1982 sample is based on a different underlying classification than the one employed in 1994 and 2004.

Comparability — Mozambique [top]

Both samples use the ISCO 1988 classification, requiring no recoding, with minor difference in the universes.

Comparability — Netherlands [top]

The sample used the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding.

Comparability — Nicaragua [top]

The 1971 sample uses a different underlying classification. The 1995 and 2005 samples use ISCO.

Comparability — Nigeria [top]

Occupation data are not available for 2006 and 2007. The 2008 and 2009 samples use the ISCO 2008 classification system. The 2010 sample uses the ISCO 1988 classification system. Recoding was not required for any sample. The universe differs slightly across samples.

Comparability — Pakistan [top]

The 1973 Pakistan sample required significant recoded to fit the ISCO classification.

Comparability — Palestine [top]

Both samples use the 1-digit ISCO classification and are fully comparable apart from a minor universe difference.

Comparability — Panama [top]

The 2000 and 2010 samples used the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding. The samples for previous years used differing classifications that had considerable detail.

Comparability — Paraguay [top]

The 2002 sample uses the ISCO 1988 classification. Earlier samples use differing classifications, but they conform fairly well to ISCO.

Comparability — Peru [top]

The data for Peru are fully comparable between samples and were organized along ISCO lines, requiring minimal modification.

Comparability — Philippines [top]

Both samples used the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding.

Comparability — Poland [top]

The 1978 and 1988 samples were not integrated because they were not compatible with the ISCO coding structure. See the occupation unharmonized source variables for these censuses.

The 2002 sample had significantly less response categories but the coding structure follows ISCO.

Comparability — Portugal [top]

The 1991-2011 samples used the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding.

Comparability — Puerto Rico [top]

The Puerto Rico data are recoded from differing underlying classifications. The universe of respondents changes over time as well.

Comparability — Romania [top]

The universe changes from people who are employed or seeking work in 1992 to only those people with a job in 2002. In 2011, the universe changes back to include only persons who were either employed or seeking work.

The 1977 sample includes an occupation variable, but it is not compatible with OCCISCO.

Comparability — Rwanda [top]

The sample used the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding.

Comparability — Saint Lucia [top]

The 1991 Saint Lucia sample uses the ISCO classification. Occupation data are not available in 1980.

Comparability — Senegal [top]

The 2002 sample uses the ISCO classification, requiring no modification. The 1988 Senegal classification is highly industrial in character and is a relatively poor fit for the ISCO system into which it is coded.

Comparability — Sierra Leone [top]

The data report the occupation of respondents who worked in the last 30 days using a 1-digit ISCO classification.

Comparability — Slovenia [top]

The sample used the ISCO general category coding scheme, requiring no recoding.

The universe for Slovenia includes employed persons. Although no lower age limit is explicitly specified, no one under age 15 has an occupation.

Comparability — South Africa [top]

The question was asked of employed persons in all census years, but the age universe of respondents differs.

All samples were originally classified into the ISCO system by the national statistical office, so they required no recoding for OCCISCO.

Comparability — Spain [top]

The underlying codes from which OCCISCO was derived differ for each sample, and none were designed on the ISCO model. The 1991 OCCISCO codes were derived from 20 occupational categories, making for an especially crude classification in that year. Retirees are included in the 1991 universe and excluded from the 1981, 2001, and 2011 samples. Therefore, there are significantly more persons with occupation responses in 1991 than in the other years.

Comparability — Sudan [top]

The sample uses the ISCO classification.

Comparability — Switzerland [top]

All Switzerland samples use the ISCO classification. They each also have alternative occupation data available in the unharmonized source variables.

Comparability — Tanzania [top]

The data for all the Tanzania samples are based in the ISCO system, although the 1988 sample has no categories for technicians and operatives.

Comparability — Thailand [top]

The 2000 sample uses the ISCO classfication, and 1980-1990 were similar, requiring limited recoding. The 1970 classification is considerably different.

Comparability — Trinidad and Tobago [top]

The Trinidad and Tobago 1990 and 2000 sample use a classification compatible with ISCO 1988. The 1980 sample differs and it was not possible to distinguish technicians from professionals.

Comparability — Turkey [top]

All samples use the same classification and are therefore highly comparable with each other.

Comparability — Uganda [top]

Both samples used the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding. There is a significant increase in skilled agricultural workers from 1991 to 2002, and a decrease in elementary workers.

Comparability — United Kingdom [top]

The 2001 sample used the ISCO classification system, requiring no recoding. The 1991 sample used a different classification, but it generally made distinctions that facilitated recoding into the ISCO system.

Comparability — United States [top]

OCCISCO is coded from the classification used in OCC95US, which integrates differing U.S. classifications into the 1950 U.S. census system. In 1980 and 2000, there were major reclassifications of the underlying U.S. data, and comparisons spanning those years will be less robust. The U.S. samples are otherwise comparable, aside from the differences in the universe with respect to age, armed forces, and experienced workers not in the labor force.

Comparability — Uruguay [top]

The 1963 and 1975 samples each use a unique classification scheme. The 1996 and 2006 samples use ISCO.

Comparability — Venezuela [top]

The universe differs across samples. The original data for 2001 were coded into the ISCO system, requiring no recoding. The 1981 and 1990 samples used the same classification. 1990 has more skilled agricultural workers than the surrounding samples.

OCCISCO is not available for 1971 because the documentation did match the values in the data.

Comparability — Vietnam [top]

The Vietnam 1999 census classified occupations using the ISCO 1988 system. The question applied to those persons who worked at least six of the previous twelve months. The 2009 sample used a three-digit occupation variable in the original data that was three-digits, but with the first digit corresponding to the ISCO one-digit codes. The universe for 2009 is includes persons age 15 and older who were at work, on salary, or had a job to return to.

The Vietnam samples originally coded the great majority of agricultural workers to the unskilled category. For purposes of comparability with other countries, these cases are coded to skilled agricultural workers in OCCISCO.

The census of 1989 used a different scheme that is impossible to fit in ISCO. See OCC for the codes.

Comparability — Zambia [top]

The 1990 and 2000 samples use the ISCO 1968 classification system; some recoding was necessary. The 2010 sample uses the ISCO 1988 classification system. The universe differs slightly across samples.

Universe

  • Argentina 1970: Persons age 10+ who were employed or experienced unemployed
  • Argentina 1980: Persons age 14+ who were employed or experienced unemployed
  • Armenia 2011: Persons age 15 to 75 with a job
  • Austria 1971: Persons age 15+ who are economically active
  • Austria 1981: Persons age 15+ who are economically active
  • Austria 1991: Persons age 15+ who are economically active
  • Austria 2001: Persons age 15+ who are economically active
  • Belarus 1999: Persons age 15+ who had worked
  • Belarus 2009: Persons age 15+ who had worked
  • Bolivia 1976: Persons age 7+ in the labor force
  • Bolivia 1992: Persons age 7+ who worked last week, and experienced unemployed
  • Bolivia 2001: Persons age 7+ who worked last week
  • Botswana 1981: Persons age 12+ who had worked
  • Botswana 1991: Persons age 12+ who had worked
  • Botswana 2001: Persons age 12+ who had worked
  • Botswana 2011: Persons age 12+ who had worked
  • Brazil 1960: Persons age 10+ in the labor force
  • Brazil 1970: Persons age 10+ who worked or looked for work in the previous 12 months
  • Brazil 1980: Persons age 10+ who worked in the previous 12 months
  • Brazil 1991: Persons age 10+ who worked in the previous 12 months
  • Brazil 2000: Persons age 10+ who worked last week
  • Brazil 2010: Persons age 10+ who worked last week
  • Burkina Faso 1985: Residents age 10+ in the labor force
  • Burkina Faso 1996: Residents age 6+ in the labor force
  • Cambodia 1998: Persons who were employed or unemployed
  • Cambodia 2008: Persons age 5+ who were employed or experienced unemployed
  • Cameroon 1976: Persons age 4+ who ever worked
  • Cameroon 2005: Residents age 6+ who were working or worked in the past
  • Canada 1971: Persons age 15+ who worked last year
  • Canada 1981: Persons age 15+ who worked last year
  • Canada 1991: Persons age 15+ who worked last year
  • Canada 2001: Persons age 15+ who worked last year
  • Canada 2011: Persons age 15+ who worked last year
  • Chile 1960: Persons who were working age 12+
  • Chile 1970: Persons age 12+ with a job last week
  • Chile 1982: Persons age 15+ who ever worked
  • Chile 1992: Persons age 14+ who ever worked
  • Chile 2002: Persons age 15+ working or seeking work
  • China 1982: Persons age 15+ who were working
  • China 1990: Persons age 15+ who were working
  • China 2000: Persons age 15+ who were working
  • Colombia 1964: Persons age 12+, with a job or experienced unemployed
  • Colombia 1973: Persons age 10+, with a job or experienced unemployed
  • Costa Rica 1973: Persons age 12+ who ever worked
  • Costa Rica 1984: Persons age 12+ who ever worked
  • Costa Rica 2000: Persons age 12+ who were employed
  • Costa Rica 2011: Persons age 12+ who were employed
  • Cuba 2002: Persons age 15+ who worked or had a job
  • Dominican Republic 1960: Persons age 10+ who were employed
  • Dominican Republic 1970: Persons age 10+ who were economically active
  • Dominican Republic 1981: Perons age 10+ who ever worked
  • Dominican Republic 2002: Perons age 10+ who ever worked
  • Dominican Republic 2010: Perons age 10+ who ever worked
  • Ecuador 1962: Persons age 12+ who were employed, unemployed or looking for a job
  • Ecuador 1974: Persons age 12+ who worked, didn't work but had a job, or unemployed
  • Ecuador 1982: Persons age 12+ who ever worked
  • Ecuador 1990: Persons age 8+ who are employed, unemployed, or an unpaid worker
  • Ecuador 2001: Persons that ever worked
  • Ecuador 2010: Persons age 5+ who were employed
  • Egypt 1986: Persons age 15+ who were working or seeking work
  • Egypt 1996: Persons age 15+ who were economically active
  • Egypt 2006: Persons age 6+ who were economically active
  • El Salvador 1992: Persons age 10+ who were employed
  • El Salvador 2007: Persons age 10+ who were employed or experienced unemployed
  • Ethiopia 1984: Household residents age 10+ who ever worked
  • Ethiopia 1994: Persons age 10+ who worked or were experienced workers looking for work
  • Fiji 1976: Persons age 14+ in the labor force
  • Fiji 1986: Persons age 15+ who worked last week
  • Fiji 1996: Persons age 15+ who worked last week
  • Fiji 2007: Persons age 10+ who worked last week
  • France 1962: Employed persons age 14+
  • France 1968: Employed persons age 14+
  • France 1975: Employed persons age 16+
  • France 1982: Employed persons age 14+
  • France 1990: Employed persons age 14+
  • France 1999: Employed persons age 15+
  • France 2006: Employed persons age 14+
  • France 2011: Active employed persons
  • Germany 1970: Economically active persons age 15+
  • Germany 1981: Economically active persons age 14+
  • Germany 1987: Employed persons age 15+
  • Ghana 1984: Persons age 10+ who worked
  • Ghana 2000: Persons age 7+ in the labor force
  • Ghana 2010: Persons age 5+ who were economically active
  • Greece 1971: Persons age 10+ who were working
  • Greece 1981: Persons age 10+ who were workng or were seeking work
  • Greece 1991: Persons age 10+ who were workng or were seeking work
  • Greece 2001: Persons age 10+ who were workng or were seeking work
  • Guinea 1983: Persons age 10+ who were employed or unemployed
  • Guinea 1996: Residents age 6+ employed or experienced unemployed
  • Haiti 1982: Persons age 10+ who were employed
  • Haiti 2003: Persons age 10+ who were employed
  • Hungary 1970: Employed persons age 14+
  • Hungary 1980: Persons who were economically active or who worked more than 90 days in agriculture in 1979
  • Hungary 1990: Economically active persons
  • Hungary 2001: Employed persons
  • Hungary 2011: Persons age 15+ who ever worked
  • India 1983: Persons who had a job last week
  • India 1987: Persons age 5+ who were employed last week
  • India 1993: Persons who had a job last week
  • India 1999: Persons age 5+ who were employed last week
  • India 2004: Persons who had a job last week
  • India 2009: Persons age 5+ who engaged in economic activity
  • Indonesia 1971: Persons age 10+ who were employed or experienced unemployed
  • Indonesia 1976: Persons age 10+ who worked last week
  • Indonesia 1980: Persons age 10+ who had a job
  • Indonesia 1985: Persons age 10+ who had a job
  • Indonesia 1990: Persons age 10+ who had a job
  • Indonesia 1995: Persons age 10+ who had a job
  • Indonesia 2005: Persons age 10+ who had a job
  • Iran 2006: Employed persons age 10+
  • Iran 2011: Employed persons age 10+
  • Iraq 1997: Persons age 6+ who were employed
  • Ireland 1971: Persons age 14+ in the labor force
  • Ireland 1981: Employed persons age 15+
  • Ireland 1986: Employed persons age 15+
  • Ireland 1991: Employed persons age 15+
  • Ireland 1996: Persons age 15+ who were working, experienced unemployed or retired
  • Ireland 2002: Non-absent persons age 15+ who were working, experienced unemployed or retired
  • Ireland 2006: Non-absent persons age 15+ who were working, experienced unemployed or retired
  • Ireland 2011: Non-absent persons age 15+ who were working, experienced unemployed or retired
  • Italy 2001: Persons age 15+ and worked for pay
  • Jamaica 1982: Persons age 14+ in private households and selected group quarters, employed or experienced unemployed
  • Jamaica 1991: Persons age 14+ in private households or selected group quarters, in the labor force
  • Jamaica 2001: Persons age 14+ in the labor force
  • Jordan 2004: Persons age 15+ with a job last week
  • Kenya 1989: Persons age 10+ who worked for pay or profit, on leave/sick leave, or working on family holdings during the previous seven days
  • Kyrgyz Republic 1999: Persons age 16+ who were working
  • Liberia 1974: Persons age 10+ who worked in the last year
  • Liberia 2008: Persons age 6+ who worked in the last year
  • Malawi 1987: Persons age 10+ employed or experienced unemployed
  • Malawi 1998: Persons age 10+ working or unemployed
  • Malawi 2008: Non-visitors age 6+ employed, subsistence worker, or experienced unemployed
  • Malaysia 1970: Persons age 10+ in labor force
  • Malaysia 1980: Persons age 10+ in labor force
  • Malaysia 1991: Persons age 10+ who were employed
  • Malaysia 2000: Persons age 10+ who were employed
  • Mali 1987: Economically active persons age 6+
  • Mali 1998: Economically active persons age 6+
  • Mali 2009: Economically active persons age 6+
  • Mexico 1960: All persons who reported an occupation
  • Mexico 1970: Persons age 12+ who worked the previous year
  • Mexico 1990: Persons age 12+ who are employed
  • Mexico 1995: Persons age 12+ who are employed
  • Mexico 2000: Persons age 12+ who are employed
  • Mexico 2010: Persons age 12+ who are employed
  • Mexico 2015: Persons age 12+ who are employed
  • Mongolia 2000: Persons age 15+ who worked last week
  • Morocco 1982: Persons who worked last week
  • Morocco 1994: Employed and experienced unemployed persons
  • Morocco 2004: Employed and experienced unemployed persons
  • Mozambique 1997: Persons who worked or looked for a new job in the last week
  • Mozambique 2007: Residents age 7+ who worked or looked for a new job in the last week
  • Netherlands 2001: Persons who were economically active
  • Nicaragua 1971: Persons age 10+ who were employed or experienced unemployed
  • Nicaragua 1995: Persons age 10+ who were employed or experienced unemployed
  • Nicaragua 2005: Persons age 10+ who were employed or experienced unemployed
  • Nigeria 2008: Persons age 10+ with a job
  • Nigeria 2009: Persons age 10+ with a job
  • Nigeria 2010: Persons age 5+ who worked last week
  • Pakistan 1973: Persons age 10+ who worked last week
  • Palestine 1997: Persons age 10+ working or experienced unemployed
  • Palestine 2007: Persons age 7+ who were employed or experienced unemployed, except those in Jerusalem annexed by Israel in 1967
  • Panama 1960: Non-indigenous persons age 10+ in the labor force
  • Panama 1970: Persons age 10+ in the labor force
  • Panama 1980: Persons age 10+ in the labor force
  • Panama 1990: Persons age 10+ in the labor force
  • Panama 2000: Persons age 10+ who were employed
  • Panama 2010: Persons age 10+ who were economically active and experienced unemployed
  • Paraguay 1962: Persons age 12+ who were economically active
  • Paraguay 1972: Persons age 12+ who ever worked
  • Paraguay 1982: Economically active persons age 12+ excluding new workers
  • Paraguay 1992: Persons 10+ with a job or looking for work
  • Paraguay 2002: Persons age 10+ who worked last week
  • Peru 1993: Persons age 6+ with work or experienced and seeking work
  • Peru 2007: Persons age 6+ who worked last week
  • Philippines 1990: Persons age 10+ who are employed
  • Philippines 2000: Persons age 10+ who are working
  • Poland 2002: Persons age 15+ that are economically active
  • Portugal 1981: Persons age 12+ who are employed or looking for a job
  • Portugal 1991: Persons age 12+ who are employed or looking for a job
  • Portugal 2001: Persons age 15+ who are employed or looking for a job
  • Portugal 2011: Persons age 15+ who were economically active
  • Puerto Rico 1970: Persons age 14+ who worked within the past 10 years, and persons seeking work who last worked more than 10 years ago
  • Puerto Rico 1980: Persons age 16+ who worked within the past 5 years, not new workers
  • Puerto Rico 1990: Persons age 16+ who worked within the past 5 years, not new workers
  • Puerto Rico 2000: Persons age 16+ who worked within the past 5 years, not new workers
  • Puerto Rico 2005: Persons age 16+ who worked within the past 5 years, not new workers
  • Puerto Rico 2010: Persons age 16+ who worked within the past 5 years, not new workers
  • Romania 1992: Persons who are employed or seeking another work place
  • Romania 2002: Persons who have at least one job
  • Romania 2011: Persons who are employed or seeking another work place
  • Rwanda 2002: Non-visitors age 6+ who are employed or experienced unemployed
  • Saint Lucia 1991: Persons age 15+ who ever worked
  • Senegal 1988: Persons age 6+
  • Senegal 2002: Employed persons age 6+
  • Sierra Leone 2004: Persons age 10+ who worked in the last 30 days
  • Slovenia 2002: Employed persons
  • South Africa 1996: Employed persons age 15+ in private households
  • South Africa 2001: Employed or economically active persons age 10+
  • South Africa 2007: Persons age 15 to 74 with a job last week, not in institutions
  • South Sudan 2008: Persons age 10+ who are employed or experienced unemployed
  • Spain 1981: Persons who work or have worked
  • Spain 1991: People employed, unemployed but having worked before, and retirees
  • Spain 2001: Persons age 16+ who worked last week
  • Spain 2011: Persons age 16+ who were working or were unemployed with previous work experience
  • Sudan 2008: Persons age 10+ who are employed or experienced unemployed
  • Switzerland 1970: Employed persons
  • Switzerland 1980: Employed persons
  • Switzerland 1990: Employed persons age 15+
  • Switzerland 2000: Employed persons
  • Tanzania 1988: Employed persons age 10+
  • Tanzania 2002: Persons age 5+ who worked last week
  • Tanzania 2012: Persons age 5+ who were economically active in the last week
  • Thailand 1970: Persons age 11+ who were employed
  • Thailand 1980: Persons age 11+ who were employed
  • Thailand 1990: Persons age 13+ who were employed
  • Thailand 2000: Persons age 13+ who were employed
  • Trinidad and Tobago 1980: Persons age 15+ that are economically active
  • Trinidad and Tobago 1990: Persons age 15+ that are economically active
  • Trinidad and Tobago 2000: Persons age 15+ that are economically active
  • Turkey 1985: Persons age 12+ with a job last week
  • Turkey 1990: Persons age 12+ with a job last week
  • Turkey 2000: Persons age 12+ with a job last week
  • Uganda 1991: Persons age 10+ with a job
  • Uganda 2002: Persons age 5+ who are in labor force
  • United Kingdom 1991: Persons age 16+ who worked within last 10 years
  • United Kingdom 2001: Persons age 16 to 74 who ever worked, not non-resident students
  • United States 1960: Persons age 14+ who had worked within the previous ten years; not armed forces, not new workers (see note)
  • United States 1970: Persons age 14+ who had worked within the previous ten years; not armed forces, not new workers (see note)
  • United States 1980: Persons age 16+ who had worked within the previous five years; not armed forces, not new workers (see note)
  • United States 1990: Persons age 16+ who had worked within the previous five years; not new workers (see note)
  • United States 2000: Persons age 16+ who had worked within the previous five years; not new workers (see note)
  • United States 2005: Persons age 16+ who had worked within the previous five years; not new workers (see note)
  • Uruguay 1963: Persons 8+ in the labor force
  • Uruguay 1975: Persons 12+ who were employed or experienced unemployed
  • Uruguay 1996: Persons 12+ who were employed or experienced unemployed
  • Uruguay 2006: Persons age 14+ with a job
  • Venezuela 1981: Persons age 12+ who had a job at the time of the census, or during the year prior, or worked the previous week
  • Venezuela 1990: Employed persons and experienced unemployed age 12+
  • Venezuela 2001: Persons age 10+ in the labor force
  • Vietnam 1999: Persons age 13+ who worked at least 6 months in the previous year
  • Vietnam 2009: Persons age 15+ who had a job
  • Zambia 1990: Persons age 12+ who were employed in the past year
  • Zambia 2000: Persons age 12+ who were employed in the past year
  • Zambia 2010: Present household members and visitors age 12+ who were employed in the past year

Availability

  • Argentina: 1970, 1980
  • Armenia: 2011
  • Austria: 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001
  • Belarus: 1999, 2009
  • Bolivia: 1976, 1992, 2001
  • Botswana: 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011
  • Brazil: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1991, 2000, 2010
  • Burkina Faso: 1985, 1996
  • Cambodia: 1998, 2008
  • Cameroon: 1976, 2005
  • Canada: 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011
  • Chile: 1960, 1970, 1982, 1992, 2002
  • China: 1982, 1990, 2000
  • Colombia: 1964, 1973
  • Costa Rica: 1973, 1984, 2000, 2011
  • Cuba: 2002
  • Dominican Republic: 1960, 1970, 1981, 2002, 2010
  • Ecuador: 1962, 1974, 1982, 1990, 2001, 2010
  • Egypt: 1986, 1996, 2006
  • El Salvador: 1992, 2007
  • Ethiopia: 1984, 1994
  • Fiji: 1976, 1986, 1996, 2007
  • France: 1962, 1968, 1975, 1982, 1990, 1999, 2006, 2011
  • Germany: 1970, 1981, 1987
  • Ghana: 1984, 2000, 2010
  • Greece: 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011
  • Guinea: 1983, 1996
  • Haiti: 1982, 2003
  • Hungary: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2001, 2011
  • India: 1983, 1987, 1993, 1999, 2004, 2009
  • Indonesia: 1971, 1976, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2005
  • Iran: 2006, 2011
  • Iraq: 1997
  • Ireland: 1971, 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2002, 2006, 2011
  • Italy: 2001
  • Jamaica: 1982, 1991, 2001
  • Jordan: 2004
  • Kenya: 1989
  • Kyrgyz Republic: 1999
  • Liberia: 1974, 2008
  • Malawi: 1987, 1998, 2008
  • Malaysia: 1970, 1980, 1991, 2000
  • Mali: 1987, 1998, 2009
  • Mexico: 1960, 1970, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2010, 2015
  • Mongolia: 2000
  • Morocco: 1982, 1994, 2004
  • Mozambique: 1997, 2007
  • Netherlands: 2001
  • Nicaragua: 1971, 1995, 2005
  • Nigeria: 2008-2010
  • Pakistan: 1973
  • Palestine: 1997, 2007
  • Panama: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010
  • Paraguay: 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002
  • Peru: 1993, 2007
  • Philippines: 1990, 2000
  • Poland: 2002
  • Portugal: 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011
  • Puerto Rico: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010
  • Romania: 1992, 2002, 2011
  • Rwanda: 2002
  • Saint Lucia: 1991
  • Senegal: 1988, 2002
  • Sierra Leone: 2004
  • Slovenia: 2002
  • South Africa: 1996, 2001, 2007
  • South Sudan: 2008
  • Spain: 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011
  • Sudan: 2008
  • Switzerland: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000
  • Tanzania: 1988, 2002, 2012
  • Thailand: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000
  • Trinidad and Tobago: 1980, 1990, 2000
  • Turkey: 1985, 1990, 2000
  • Uganda: 1991, 2002
  • United Kingdom: 1991, 2001
  • United States: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010
  • Uruguay: 1963, 1975, 1996, 2006
  • Venezuela: 1981, 1990, 2001
  • Vietnam: 1999, 2009
  • Zambia: 1990, 2000, 2010