The great unemployment disappearing act

Today's unemployment figures revealed that the internationally recognised measure of UK unemployment fell by 48,000 and the claimant count (i.e. the number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance) fell by 41,700.

These two figures were remarkably close. To the uninitiated naively logical this might seem to corroborate that there are roughly 40-50,000 fewer unemployed people in the last 3 months.

However, with those subtractions ILO unemployment stood at 2.47 million, while the claimant count was only 1.31 million. So in relative terms the fall in the claimant count was nearly twice as sharp.

As the graph below shows - this is not a one-off occurence but part of a 20-year trend that has seen the ILO unemployment measure part company with claimant count.

Whereas the claimant count accounted for 96.6% of ILO unemployment 20 years ago in 1993, three years later the claimant count was only 83.2%. Five years on again - or twelve years ago - in 2001, the claimant count was just 64.5%.

Today, the claimant count was just under 53% of the ILO measure.

It is not entirely clear why this has happened. Certainly a part of the reason is the increased conditionality, and reduced eligibility that has applied to claiming unemployment benefit since the 1995 Jobseekers Act - and toughened by successive welfare reform acts under successive governments.

The recent sharp downturn in the claimant count - and sharp relative to ILO unemployment - is no doubt partially explained by the increase in sanctions (see LEAP analysis 6 November 2013).

But the rut set in slightly earlier. Under the Major government the claimant count averaged 93.3% of the ILO measure. In the Blair/Brown New Labour years, the claimant count averaged just 63.1%, and under Cameron's coalition government to date that has already dropped again to 59.9% (and was 53% in today's figures).

It means that the claimant count is becoming a less reliable indicator of true unemployment. With an increased sanctions regime, and extra conditionality generally (including workfare), and the demonisation of claimants as 'scroungers' and 'skivers', jobseeker's allowance has become a daunting benefit to claim.

As PCS research has found (see infographic here) the real value of unemployment benefit has fallen from 18% of average wages in 1990 to just 13% today.

With increasingly greater sanctions, more conditionality, less eligibility, more stigma and less value - is it any wonder the claimant count now represents barely half the true level of unemployment.

ILO G20 report, and the UK

The ILO has published a report in advance of the G20 summit in Pittsburgh later this week. The report, Protecting people, promoting jobs: A survey of country employment and social protection policy responses to the global economic crisis, compares measures taken by 54 countries in the wake of the global recession. It makes interesting reading.

Apologies for being a bit nationalistic, but here in short is what it shows about the UK:

• UK unemployment is slightly below the G20 average of 8.5%
• However, UK unemployment has risen more quickly in the last year than on average: up 38% here, compared to the average of 29.6%
• We are one of the select few countries where manufacturing has fallen more than 10% in the last year - alongside the US, Spain and Canada
• Of the countries that have had similar declines in GDP to the UK (i.e. more than 4%) only Spain has also had such a "sharp" increase in unemployment. Germany, Italy and Japan have all managed to stop job losses rising so quickly with comparable GDP drops.

The report also shows that many countries have done more to expand welfare programmes: for instance France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Hungary, Japan and Canada have all increased the coverage of unemployment benefits - Canada, the US and the Czech Republic have all increased the value of unemployment benefit; Japan and the Netherlands have introduced measures to protect migrant workers.

My favourite graph though is on page 20 of the report about comparable fiscal stimulus packages for 2008-10. Here the UK is well below the average, committing only 1% of GDP, compared with over 1.5% in Denmark, Germany, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand and Spain; and over 2% in Canada, Japan, Australia, the US and South Korea.

Why is it, despite Brown's modest press briefings at the G20 in London, that the UK cannot do more? It might be to do with the massive debt from our dodgy banks which were deregulated under Brown's chancellorship, and bailed out at huge cost under his Premiership.