United Kingdom
Work and gender
Key points
- The proportion of working-age women who are not working is much lower than thirty years ago whilst the equivalent proportion for men is much higher: 30% of working-age women are now not working compared to 40% thirty years ago, a decrease of 10 percentage points; by contrast, 20% of working-age men are now not working compared to 10% thirty years ago, an increase of 10 percentage points.
- So, while fewer women still work than men, the gap has shrunk from 30 percentage points thirty years ago to 10 percentage points now.
- These trends - of increasing work rates for women and decreasing work rates for men - have been happening throughout the last thirty years. This can be seen from looking at the trends in economic inactivity which, by effectively holding ILO unemployment constant over time, remove the impact of the recessions in the early 1980s and early 1990s.
- The net result of the differing trends between men and women is that the overall proportion of the working-age population who are economically inactive has remained broadly unchanged throughout the last thirty years.
- Whilst the overall difference in work rates between men and women is around 10 percentage points, the differences are much greater between the ages of 25 and 49 (around 15 percentage points) than in either the 18 to 24 or 50 to retirement age groups (both around 5 percentage points).
Graph 1: Not working (over time)
View Graph as PDF Right click to save large version of Graph as PNG
Graph 2: Economically inactive (i.e. not working or unemployed)
View Graph as PDF Right click to save large version of Graph as PNG
Graph 3: Not working (by age group)
View Graph as PDF Right click to save large version of Graph as PNG
Why this indicator was originally chosen
Over the last thirty or so years the balance of work between men and women has changed substantially.
Definitions and data sources
The first graph shows the proportion of the working-age population who are not working, with the data shown separately for men and for women.
A problem with the first graph is that the impact of recessions can obscure the underlying trends. In this context, the second graph shows the proportion of the working-age population who are economically inactive (i.e. neither working nor ILO unemployed), again with the data shown separately for men and for women. This graph effectively holds ILO unemployment constant over time and thus removes the impact of the recessions in the early 1980s and early 1990s.
The third graph shows, for the latest year, the proportion of the working-age population who are not working by age group and gender.
The data source for all the graphs is the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and relates to the United Kingdom. The data for each year is for the month of April.
The economically inactive are all those who are neither working nor officially unemployed. Official unemployment is the ILO definition and comprises those with no paid work in the survey week who were available to start work in the next fortnight and who either looked for work in the last month or were waiting to start a job already obtained. People are therefore classified as economically inactive if they are both not working and do not at least one of the criteria above.
Overall adequacy of the indicator: high. The LFS is a large, well-established, quarterly government survey, designed to be representative of the population as a whole.
External links
- See the 2007 Joseph Rowntree Foundation report entitled Work-rich and work-poor: three decades of change.
Relevant 2007 Public Service Agreements
Overall aim: Address the disadvantage that individuals experience because of their gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief.
Lead department
Government Equalities Office.
Official national targets
None.
Other indicators of progress
Gender gap in hourly pay.
Level of choice, control and flexibility to enable independent living.
Participation in public life by women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and young people.
Discrimination in employment.
Fairness of treatment by services.
Previous 2004 targets
By 2008, working with all departments, bring about measurable improvements in gender equality across a range of indicators, as part of the Government's objectives on equality and social inclusion.
Relevant government policies
The numbers
Graphs 1 and 2
| Year | Proportion not working | Proportion economically inactive | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | Women | Men and women combined | Men | Women | Men and women combined | 1971 | 8.6% | 43.7% | 25.4% | 5.1% | 40.7% | 22.2% |
| 1972 | 8.9% | 43.1% | 25.3% | 5.3% | 40.0% | 21.9% |
| 1973 | 8.3% | 41.7% | 24.3% | 5.6% | 38.6% | 21.4% |
| 1974 | 9.1% | 40.7% | 24.2% | 6.3% | 37.7% | 21.3% |
| 1975 | 10.1% | 40.6% | 24.7% | 6.2% | 37.3% | 21.0% |
| 1976 | 11.2% | 41.0% | 25.4% | 6.4% | 37.2% | 21.1% |
| 1977 | 12.0% | 41.0% | 25.8% | 7.1% | 37.0% | 21.4% |
| 1978 | 12.6% | 40.7% | 26.1% | 7.9% | 36.6% | 21.7% |
| 1979 | 12.9% | 40.1% | 26.0% | 8.5% | 36.0% | 21.7% |
| 1980 | 14.8% | 40.1% | 26.9% | 8.8% | 35.3% | 21.5% |
| 1981 | 18.5% | 41.2% | 29.3% | 9.1% | 35.2% | 21.6% |
| 1982 | 20.9% | 42.0% | 31.0% | 10.4% | 35.7% | 22.5% |
| 1983 | 22.3% | 42.2% | 31.8% | 11.5% | 35.2% | 22.8% |
| 1984 | 21.8% | 40.6% | 30.8% | 11.2% | 32.7% | 21.5% |
| 1985 | 21.7% | 39.4% | 30.2% | 11.4% | 31.8% | 21.1% |
| 1986 | 22.1% | 38.5% | 30.0% | 11.8% | 30.9% | 20.9% |
| 1987 | 21.3% | 37.1% | 28.9% | 11.7% | 30.0% | 20.5% |
| 1988 | 19.2% | 35.1% | 26.8% | 11.4% | 29.1% | 19.9% |
| 1989 | 17.7% | 33.5% | 25.3% | 11.2% | 28.4% | 19.5% |
| 1990 | 17.9% | 33.0% | 25.2% | 11.4% | 28.0% | 19.4% |
| 1991 | 21.0% | 34.0% | 27.2% | 12.3% | 28.5% | 20.1% |
| 1992 | 23.8% | 34.7% | 29.1% | 13.6% | 29.2% | 21.1% |
| 1993 | 24.9% | 34.9% | 29.7% | 14.2% | 29.1% | 21.4% |
| 1994 | 24.3% | 34.6% | 29.2% | 14.6% | 29.2% | 21.7% |
| 1995 | 23.7% | 34.0% | 28.6% | 15.0% | 28.9% | 21.8% |
| 1996 | 23.3% | 33.2% | 28.1% | 15.2% | 28.5% | 21.6% |
| 1997 | 22.1% | 32.5% | 27.2% | 15.4% | 28.1% | 21.6% |
| 1998 | 21.6% | 31.9% | 26.6% | 15.7% | 27.9% | 21.6% |
| 1999 | 21.2% | 31.2% | 26.0% | 15.5% | 27.3% | 21.2% |
| 2000 | 20.8% | 30.7% | 25.6% | 15.7% | 27.1% | 21.3% |
| 2001 | 20.7% | 30.7% | 25.6% | 16.0% | 27.4% | 21.5% |
| 2002 | 21.0% | 30.4% | 25.5% | 16.1% | 27.0% | 21.4% |
| 2003 | 20.8% | 30.3% | 25.4% | 16.1% | 27.0% | 21.3% |
| 2004 | 20.7% | 30.1% | 25.3% | 16.4% | 26.8% | 21.4% |
| 2005 | 21.0% | 30.0% | 25.3% | 16.5% | 26.7% | 21.4% |
| 2006 | 21.2% | 30.0% | 25.4% | 16.3% | 26.1% | 21.0% |
| 2007 | 21.2% | 30.2% | 25.5% | 16.4% | 26.3% | 21.1% |
Graph 3
| Age group | Proportion not working | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Men | Women | Men and women combined | |
| 18 to 24 | 32.4% | 38.0% | 35.2% |
| 25 to 34 | 11.3% | 38.0% | 19.7% |
| 35 to 49 | 11.2% | 24.1% | 17.7% |
| 50 to retirement | 27.4% | 30.5% | 28.7% |