Mongolia vs Serbia: Informal care employment
Informal care employment over time
- Mongolia
- Serbia
How they compare
Serbia currently reports 21.09 against 9.41 in Mongolia, a difference of 11.68.
That makes Serbia's figure about 2.2 times Mongolia's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 12 shared years of data; in 2008 it was Serbia ahead.
Mongolia ranks 38th and Serbia ranks 35th of 43 countries.
Serbia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mongolia | Serbia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.15 | 11.02 | 7.87 | Serbia |
| 2010s | 5.64 | 15.98 | 10.34 | Serbia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher informal care employment, Mongolia or Serbia?
- Serbia, at 21.09 against 9.41 in Mongolia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in informal care employment between Mongolia and Serbia?
- 11.68, with Serbia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mongolia and Serbia?
- 12 years are reported by both, from 2008 to 2019.
- How do Mongolia and Serbia rank globally for informal care employment?
- Mongolia ranks 38th and Serbia ranks 35th of 43 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- International Labour Organization, published as Informal care employment (previous ILO definition - ICLS13). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
With the aim of promoting international comparability, statistics presented on ILOSTAT are based on standard international definitions wherever feasible and may differ from official national figures. This series is based on the 13th ICLS definitions. For time series comparability, it includes countries that have implemented the 19th ICLS standards, for which data are also available in the Work Statistics -- 19th ICLS (WORK) database. This harmonized series for informal employment is derived using the same set of criteria across countries to improve comparability. The criteria used are based on employment status, institutional sector, destination of production, bookkeeping, registration, social security contribution, places of work and size. For more information, refer to the Worker and Sector Profiles (PROF) database description.