Many Koreans have felt a widening discrepancy between official unemployment figures and actual perceptions. Jobless rates regularly announced by the national statistics office have been criticized by job seekers and some analysts as being understated. A new index introduced in the latest monthly labor market report released by Statistics Korea this week seemingly paints a more accurate picture of the unemployment problem.
The report put the country’s official jobless rate at 3.2 percent last month, unchanged from the previous month and up from the 2.8 percent a year earlier. The number of unemployed Koreans rose by about 135,000 over the past year to 858,000 in October.
According to the new index that complies with tougher international standards, the unemployment rate rose to 10.1 percent last month. For many Koreans, this figure seems closer to the reality of the local labor market.
The statistics office defines the unemployed as people who have applied for jobs in the past four weeks, are able to work if hired and have not worked for the past week. This definition excludes too many people ― those who have remained out of work for a long period but are still willing to work ― from the jobless list. For instance, many Korean college graduates spend years looking for desirable jobs or preparing for civil service exams.
In contrast, the new index takes into account people who are ready to work but aren’t working and part-time employees who work less than 36 hours a week. According to this measurement, considered a better reflection of a country’s unemployment situation, more than 2.87 million Koreans remained jobless as of October despite their willingness to work.
Officials at the state statistics office say it should not necessarily be regarded as an actual jobless rate. But the index, which is based on standards suggested by the International Labor Organization in October 2013, seems to be a more accurate guide for drawing up effective policies to increase employment.
It is necessary to work out more specific indicators on unemployment in terms of gender, educational level and age, to implement measures tailored to address various types of joblessness. The employment policy needs to be upgraded to focus on people’s willingness to work rather than on reducing the number of people classified as unemployed through narrow definitions.
