18 Vulnerable Employment Rate in percent, by Sex and Sector, 2008 and 2013

Furthermore, the ILO (2015) report stresses the importance of assessing the quality of employment as a major factor that will be significant in reducing poverty. This is critical, ILO says, in order to ensure that employment creation has positive implications on poverty reduction and higher living standards. ILO avers, “this link is possible only if the jobs gained are decent in terms of being secure, productive and well-paid.” (ILO, 2015, p.10). ILO explains that “monitoring the vulnerable employment rate, defined as the share of own account and contributing family workers in total employment, is key because these types of workers are less likely to have formal work arrangements and access to social protection and are more at risk during an economic or environmental crisis” (ILO, 2015, p.10).

In the Philippines, vulnerable employment decreased from 43.5% in 2008 to 38.3% in 2013 (see Figure III.18), but it was reported that 14.6 million workers were still employed as own-account or contributing family workers with limited security and protection. But where may the disparities in vulnerability exist? In 2013, the vulnerable employment rate was 6.3 percentage points higher for women than men. By sector, 61.4%t of workers in agriculture were engaged in vulnerable employment, but only 32.2% in services and 12.9% in industry.

ILO report showed that those in vulnerable employment, combined with the number of unemployed, is close to half of the working population, estimated to account for around 46% of the labor force in the Philippines (see Table III.5). While this ratio is high and points to decent work deficits in the labor market, worth noting is that the figures for both vulnerable employment (42%) and combined unemployment and vulnerable employment (46%) for the country in 2013 are lower than that in many other ASEAN member states (ILO, 2014).

As reported by ILO, other disparities can also be gleaned at the subnational level where there are wide differences among regions. The disparities reflect regional differences in the level of economic development (Figure III.15) and when taking into account the impact of conflict and natural disasters. Figure III.19 shows for example, a regional gap between the ARMM and the National Capital Region (NCR) which is a striking 60.5 percentage points.

Figure III.18. Vulnerable Employment Rate By Sex And Sector, 2008 and 2013 (%)

As cited in ILO Philippine Employment Trends 2015