China vs World: Upper-middle income: SDG indicator 8.8.2: Level of national compliance with labour rights
SDG indicator 8.8.2: Level of national compliance with labour rights over time
- China
- World: Upper-middle income
How they compare
China currently reports 9.13 against 6.65 in World: Upper-middle income, a difference of 2.48.
That makes China's figure about 1.4 times World: Upper-middle income's.
Across all 10 years both countries report, China has been ahead every year.
China ranks 6th and World: Upper-middle income ranks 9th of 186 countries.
China has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | China | World: Upper-middle income | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 8.52 | 6.29 | 2.23 | China |
| 2020s | 9.17 | 6.64 | 2.53 | China |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights, China or World: Upper-middle income?
- China, at 9.13 against 6.65 in World: Upper-middle income as of 2024.
- What is the difference in sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights between China and World: Upper-middle income?
- 2.48, with China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for China and World: Upper-middle income?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2024.
- How do China and World: Upper-middle income rank globally for sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights?
- China ranks 6th and World: Upper-middle income ranks 9th of 186 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- International Labour Organization, published as SDG indicator 8.8.2: Level of national compliance with labour rights, freedom of association and collective bargaining. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The indicator measures the level of national compliance with fundamental rights at work (freedom of association and collective bargaining, FACB) for all ILO member states based on six international ILO supervisory body textual sources and also on national legislation. It is based on the coding of textual sources against a list of evaluation criteria and then converting the coding into indicators. The indicator has a range from 0 to 10, with 0 being the best possible score (indicating higher levels of compliance with FACB rights) and 10 the worst (indicating lower levels of compliance with FACB rights). This indicator is not intended as a tool to compare compliance among ILO member States. It should specifically be noted that reporting obligations of an ILO member State to the ILO's supervisory system and thus ILO textual sources are different for ratifying and non‐ratifying ILO member States.