Descriptive Data

Since comprehensive data on most countries only be-came available in the course of the 1960s, it is impossi-ble to trace the evolution of services on a comparative basis further back in time. Until the beginning of the

Table 3.1: Share of Manufacturing in Total Employment. Source: OECD, Data on Germany from 1961 and 1969, on the UK from 1963, on the US from 1962

1970s, employment in manufacturing is either char-acterised by relative stability in countries where the shares had already achieved a high level of more than 25% of total employment, or by significant growth in countries engaged in catch-up processes, starting from a level significantly below 25% (see table 3.1). A result of this development was that, by the onset of the 1970s, a strong international convergence in the economic im-portance of manufacturing had taken place as almost all observed countries had reached proportions of in-dustrial employment exceeding the mark of 25%. This, however, has also been the moment where the trend has passed a tipping point after which it has reversed on a universal scale; during the 1970s, employment shares of manufacturing started to shrink in all countries, yet with different paces. By 2008, the Anglo-Saxon coun-tries and Norway had the lowest shares of all councoun-tries (slightly more than 10%), while Germany maintained the highest position with a share of more than 20%. It-aly, Austria, Japan, and Portugal, too, still had relatively high shares in 2008. Overall, with fractions of employ-ment in manufacturing being down to 10%–20% in 2008, all observed countries recorded substantial loss-es of industrial employment as compared to the year 1975, when the corresponding shares had been mostly between 20% and 30%.

With respect to total services, all countries have seen a rather uniform, continuous growth of employ-ment shares from the 1960s onward, leading to a high

convergence between countries (see table 3.2). In 1960, all countries had employment shares between 30% and 50%, the only exceptions being Spain and Portugal with less than 30% and the US with more than 50%.

By 2008, all countries (other than Portugal) had moved closer and reached portions of service employment be-tween 65% and 75%. Therefore, each country has in-creased its share by no less than 20 percentage points.

It is striking that, unlike in manufacturing, most coun-tries retained their relative positions compared to other countries over the decades. US, UK, Canada, Belgium, and Australia, for instance, exhibit the highest shares throughout the entire period, while Portugal, Spain, Germany, Italy, and Austria always rank lowest. As an interim conclusion, we can therefore state that, from 1960 to 2008, all observed countries decreased employ-ment shares in manufacturing by about 10 percentage points on average, which is in stark contrast to the evo-lution of total service employment whose correspond-ing share rose by up to 30 percentage points over the same time span.

Total services are a very heterogeneous catego-ry, however, comprising lots of distinct activities with widely differing features. It thus appears useful to fur-ther break down the category ‹total services› into more basic components. Broadly following Wren (2013:

117), I distinguish four different types of services (for details on these classifications see chapter 7.2.):

1. Non-dynamic services (hotels, restaurants, retail

Table 3.2: Share of Total Services in Total Employment. Source: OECD, Data on Australia from 1964, on Finland from 1971, on Ireland from 1971, on New Zealand from 1971

DESCRIPTIVE DATA 35

and wholesale trade, other community, social, and personal services)

2. Storage, transport, and communications

3. Dynamic-services (finance and insurance, real esta-te, business services)

4. Welfare services (education, health and social work, public administration)

For non-dynamic services, time series on employment are available for all countries only with the beginning of the 1980s (see table 3.3). Despite the more restricted observation period, there is a clear increase in employ-ment shares in all countries except Belgium, Switzer-land, and the UK; in most cases the increases amount to three or four percentage points, which is somewhat less than the growth in total services. The absolute shares

vary strongly. The highest fractions can be found in the Anglo-Saxon countries and Japan (about 30% to 35%), the lowest in Finland, Belgium, Sweden, and Norway (about 20%).

Hardly any growth can be noticed in transport, storage, and communications (see table 3.4). In 2008, all countries’ shares oscillate between 5% and 7% of to-tal employment, just like they did in 1970, with only minor shifts among countries. It might be the peculiarly close conjunction with manufacturing that, contrary to the general trend, hindered employment shares in this sector from rising.

A much more striking upward movement is ob-served in dynamic services (see table 3.5). Starting from an initial level no higher than 10% in any observed country in 1970, dynamic services rose by more than 10

Table 3.3: Share of Non-Dynamic Services in Total Employment. Source: OECD, Data on Australia from 2006, on Canada from 1981, on France from 2007, on Portugal from 20061971

Table 3.4: Share of Storage, Transport, and Communication in Total Employment. Source: OECD, Data on Australia and Portugal from 2006

percentage points in most cases, sometimes even more, so that in 2008, apart from Portugal, employment shares in this sector ranged from 12% in Spain to 22% in the Netherlands. Interestingly, there are only few catch-up effects. Countries with higher shares in the beginning of the time series mostly upheld their lead until the end of observation, sometimes even widening the distance to the relative laggards whose speed of growth does not match the frontrunners’.

Much more varied is the development of employ-ment shares in welfare services (see table 3.6). As with non-dynamic services, time-series on this topic are short, making a comparison over the entire period im-possible. What clearly emerges from the data, however, is that no uniform growth trend is inherent to all coun-tries. While some experienced an extraordinary

expan-sion of welfare employment from 20% to 30% or more (e.g. Denmark, Norway, France, and Finland), others stagnated (e.g. Canada, at about 20%) or grew only moderately (e.g. Spain, from 15% to 20%, or Austria from 17% to 22%). Portugal and Japan were outliers in 1970 with shares of about 10%, but caught up to a certain extent over time. Yet even in cases where a sub-stantial expansion occurred, major parts of it took place before 1990; later increases a far less substantial (with the exception of Switzerland).

As a summary, it is mostly dynamic services which, from the 1970s on, are accountable for service employ-ment growth, as they have steadily and significantly increased in all countries over the whole period. Also non-dynamic services added to higher service employ-ment shares everywhere, even though their contribution

Table 3.5: Share of Dynamic Services in Total Employment. Source: OECD, Data on Australia and Portugal from 2006

Table 3.6: Share of Welfare Services in Total Employment. Source: OECD, Data on Australia and Portugal from 2006, on Canada from 1981, on France from 2007

THEORIES ON TERTIARISATION 37

is roughly only half as large as that of dynamic services.

Welfare services, too, play a crucial role in service em-ployment expansion in some countries, especially in the years up to 1990, but a minor one thereafter. Transport, storage, and communications, finally, do not make up for higher employment shares in 2008 as they did 30 years earlier and therefore are negligible as a cause of increasing service employment.