Ecuador vs Zimbabwe: Informal employment
Informal employment over time
- Ecuador
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Ecuador currently reports 5,702 against 4,236 in Zimbabwe, a difference of 1,466.
That makes Ecuador's figure about 1.3 times Zimbabwe's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 7 shared years of data; in 2011 it was Zimbabwe ahead.
Ecuador ranks 24th and Zimbabwe ranks 27th of 81 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Ecuador averaged higher in 1 and Zimbabwe in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 4,296 | 4,814 | 518.61 | Zimbabwe |
| 2020s | 5,559 | 4,638 | 920.52 | Ecuador |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher informal employment, Ecuador or Zimbabwe?
- Ecuador, at 5,702 against 4,236 in Zimbabwe as of 2025.
- What is the difference in informal employment between Ecuador and Zimbabwe?
- 1,466, with Ecuador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Zimbabwe?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2011 to 2024.
- How do Ecuador and Zimbabwe rank globally for informal employment?
- Ecuador ranks 24th and Zimbabwe ranks 27th of 81 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- International Labour Organization, published as Informal 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. Data disaggregated by occupation are provided according to the latest version of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO). Data may have been regrouped from the national classifications, which may not be strictly compatible with ISCO. For more information, refer to the Labour Force Statistics (LFS and STLFS) database description.