Labour regulation
We can rank a larger range of countries on level of labour regulation on the basis of data put together by Juan Botero and colleagues (2004). They compiled indices for 85 countries looking at the extent to which legal frameworks in each country exist to regulate employment law and laws underpinning worker rights to collective representation (for example by unions or works’ councils). Table 3 below compares the countries on these two indices. We have used the average of the two indices to rank countries on the extent of labour regulation. The table arranges countries from least to most regulated.
Table 3 Countries ranked by level of labour regulation
| Country | Employment laws index | Collective relations laws index | Rank (1= least regulated) |
| Malaysia | 0.19 | 0.19 | 1 |
| Jamaica | 0.16 | 0.23 | 2 |
| Nigeria | 0.19 | 0.21 | 3 |
| New Zealand | 0.16 | 0.25 | 4 |
| Malawi | 0.18 | 0.25 | 5 |
| Zambia | 0.15 | 0.29 | 6 |
| Canada | 0.26 | 0.20 | 7 |
| United Kingdom | 0.28 | 0.19 | 8 |
| United States | 0.22 | 0.26 | 9 |
| Mongolia | 0.33 | 0.23 | 10 |
| Kenya | 0.37 | 0.23 | 11 |
| Israel | 0.29 | 0.31 | 12 |
| Hong Kong | 0.17 | 0.46 | 13 |
| Uruguay | 0.28 | 0.35 | 14 |
| Pakistan | 0.34 | 0.31 | 15 |
| Singapore | 0.31 | 0.34 | 16 |
| Zimbabwe | 0.25 | 0.44 | 17 |
| Australia | 0.35 | 0.37 | 18 |
| Uganda | 0.35 | 0.38 | 19 |
| Morocco | 0.26 | 0.49 | 20 |
| China | 0.43 | 0.33 | 21 |
| Thailand | 0.41 | 0.36 | 22 |
| Taiwan | 0.45 | 0.32 | 23 |
| Ghana | 0.29 | 0.48 | 24 |
| Egypt | 0.37 | 0.41 | 25 |
| Japan | 0.16 | 0.63 | 26 |
| Ireland | 0.34 | 0.46 | 27 |
| India | 0.44 | 0.38 | 28 |
| Colombia | 0.34 | 0.49 | 29 |
| Bolivia | 0.37 | 0.46 | 30 |
| Chile | 0.47 | 0.38 | 31 |
| Czech Republic | 0.52 | 0.34 | 32 |
| Austria | 0.50 | 0.36 | 33 |
| South Africa | 0.32 | 0.54 | 34 |
| Dominican Republic | 0.60 | 0.27 | 35 |
| Switzerland | 0.45 | 0.42 | 36 |
| Turkey | 0.40 | 0.47 | 37 |
| Romania | 0.33 | 0.56 | 38 |
| Lebanon | 0.50 | 0.41 | 39 |
| Argentina | 0.34 | 0.58 | 40 |
| Belgium | 0.51 | 0.42 | 41 |
| Madagascar | 0.47 | 0.46 | 42 |
| Croatia | 0.49 | 0.45 | 43 |
| Brazil | 0.57 | 0.38 | 44 |
| Bulgaria | 0.52 | 0.44 | 45 |
| Burkina Faso | 0.44 | 0.53 | 46 |
| Sri Lanka | 0.47 | 0.51 | 47 |
| Hungary | 0.38 | 0.61 | 48 |
| Korea | 0.45 | 0.54 | 49 |
| Philippines | 0.48 | 0.51 | 50 |
| Denmark | 0.57 | 0.42 | 51 |
| Greece | 0.52 | 0.49 | 52 |
| Tanzania | 0.68 | 0.32 | 53 |
| Vietnam | 0.54 | 0.48 | 54 |
| Ecuador | 0.40 | 0.64 | 55 |
| Finland | 0.74 | 0.32 | 56 |
| Mali | 0.67 | 0.39 | 57 |
| Indonesia | 0.68 | 0.39 | 58 |
| Jordan | 0.70 | 0.38 | 59 |
| Panama | 0.62 | 0.46 | 60 |
| Senegal | 0.51 | 0.57 | 61 |
| Slovak Republic | 0.66 | 0.45 | 62 |
| Armenia | 0.60 | 0.52 | 63 |
| Lithuania | 0.62 | 0.50 | 64 |
| Mexico | 0.59 | 0.58 | 65 |
| Peru | 0.46 | 0.71 | 66 |
| Venezuela | 0.65 | 0.54 | 67 |
| Netherlands | 0.73 | 0.46 | 68 |
| Tunisia | 0.82 | 0.38 | 69 |
| Poland | 0.64 | 0.57 | 70 |
| Kyrgyz republic | 0.75 | 0.46 | 71 |
| Slovenia | 0.74 | 0.49 | 72 |
| Ukraine | 0.66 | 0.58 | 73 |
| Latvia | 0.72 | 0.53 | 74 |
| Sweden | 0.74 | 0.54 | 75 |
| Italy | 0.65 | 0.63 | 76 |
| Germany | 0.70 | 0.61 | 77 |
| Spain | 0.74 | 0.59 | 78 |
| Norway | 0.69 | 0.65 | 79 |
| Georgia | 0.77 | 0.57 | 80 |
| Mozambique | 0.79 | 0.58 | 81 |
| Russian Federation | 0.83 | 0.58 | 82 |
| France | 0.74 | 0.67 | 83 |
| Portugal | 0.81 | 0.65 | 84 |
| Kazakhstan | 0.78 | 0.68 | 85 |
It is important to note that the varieties of capitalism approach does not argue that either lower regulation or greater regulation are better. Rather writers such as Hall and Soskice (2001) argue that what matters is the way institutions combine to greater comparative national advantage. For example, both Germany and the USA show strong economic performance but have very different levels of labour regulation.