Uruguay vs Viet Nam: Informal care employment rate
Informal care employment rate over time
- Uruguay
- Viet Nam
How they compare
Uruguay currently reports 17.77 against 17.28 in Viet Nam, a difference of 0.49.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 12 shared years of data; in 2013 it was Uruguay ahead.
Uruguay ranks 35th and Viet Nam ranks 36th of 43 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Uruguay averaged higher in 1 and Viet Nam in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Uruguay | Viet Nam | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 18.52 | 17.99 | 0.5251 | Uruguay |
| 2020s | 14.09 | 17.44 | 3.34 | Viet Nam |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher informal care employment rate, Uruguay or Viet Nam?
- Uruguay, at 17.77 against 17.28 in Viet Nam as of 2025.
- What is the difference in informal care employment rate between Uruguay and Viet Nam?
- 0.49, with Uruguay ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Uruguay and Viet Nam?
- 12 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2024.
- How do Uruguay and Viet Nam rank globally for informal care employment rate?
- Uruguay ranks 35th and Viet Nam ranks 36th of 43 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- International Labour Organization, published as Informal care employment rate (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.