Long-term trends in psychosocial working conditions in Europe-the role of labor market policies.
Journal
European journal of public health
ISSN: 1464-360X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9204966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2022
01 06 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
27
4
2022
medline:
7
6
2022
entrez:
26
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Employees have witnessed rising trend in work stress over the last few decades. However, we know a little about country differences in those trends. Our article fills this gap in the literature by examining heterogeneities in trends in working conditions by country groups defined by their amount of investment into labor market policy (LMP) programs. Additionally, we provide findings on differences in occupational inequalities between country groups. We use comparative longitudinal data of the European Working Conditions Surveys including cross-sectional information on employees from 15 countries surveyed in Waves 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015. Estimation results are provided by three-way multilevel models with employees nested within country-years nested within countries. Our work stress measure is the proxy version of job strain based on the demand-control model. Our regression results indicate that for employees in countries with the least LMP spending job strain increased by 10% from 1995 to 2015 compared to a smaller and insignificant change in middle- and high-LMP countries. In low-LMP countries, inequalities in job strain also widened during the studied period: the gap in job strain between the highest- and lowest-skilled increased by 60% from 1995 to 2015. This contrasts a stable gap in middle- and high-LMP countries. Our results direct the attention to the vulnerable position of the least skilled and highlight that LMP investments may buffer some of the adverse impacts of globalization and technological changes and effectively improve the labor market situation of the least skilled.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Employees have witnessed rising trend in work stress over the last few decades. However, we know a little about country differences in those trends. Our article fills this gap in the literature by examining heterogeneities in trends in working conditions by country groups defined by their amount of investment into labor market policy (LMP) programs. Additionally, we provide findings on differences in occupational inequalities between country groups.
METHODS
We use comparative longitudinal data of the European Working Conditions Surveys including cross-sectional information on employees from 15 countries surveyed in Waves 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015. Estimation results are provided by three-way multilevel models with employees nested within country-years nested within countries. Our work stress measure is the proxy version of job strain based on the demand-control model.
RESULTS
Our regression results indicate that for employees in countries with the least LMP spending job strain increased by 10% from 1995 to 2015 compared to a smaller and insignificant change in middle- and high-LMP countries. In low-LMP countries, inequalities in job strain also widened during the studied period: the gap in job strain between the highest- and lowest-skilled increased by 60% from 1995 to 2015. This contrasts a stable gap in middle- and high-LMP countries.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results direct the attention to the vulnerable position of the least skilled and highlight that LMP investments may buffer some of the adverse impacts of globalization and technological changes and effectively improve the labor market situation of the least skilled.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35472073
pii: 6574377
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckac038
pmc: PMC9159322
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
384-391Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.
Références
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021 Apr;94(3):459-474
pubmed: 33130969
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 26;10(3):e0121573
pubmed: 25812142
BMC Public Health. 2014 Aug 15;14:849
pubmed: 25127723
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015 Jun;69(6):543-9
pubmed: 25631860
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Oct;75(7):1163-74
pubmed: 22682663
Epidemiology. 2017 Jul;28(4):619-626
pubmed: 28570388
Occup Med (Lond). 2012 Apr;62(3):196-202
pubmed: 22394680
BMC Public Health. 2020 Sep 10;20(1):1377
pubmed: 32912186
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Mar;81:60-9
pubmed: 23305722
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017 Jul 1;43(4):294-306
pubmed: 28306759
Am J Ind Med. 2019 Jun;62(6):511-522
pubmed: 31046140
Int J Behav Med. 2007;14(4):189-201
pubmed: 18001234
J Occup Environ Med. 2013 Oct;55(10):1135-41
pubmed: 24064785
Lancet. 2012 Oct 27;380(9852):1491-7
pubmed: 22981903
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jan 20;12:62
pubmed: 22264402