KOREA’S EPS COMPARED

WITH PROGRAMMES IN
OTHER OECD COUNTRIES

8th ADB-ADBI-OECD-ILO Roundtable on Labor Migration in Asia

HRD Korea, Bucheon, 30-31 January 2018

Jonathan Chaloff
International Migration Division
Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, OECD
 Responses to common challenges: EPS vs
programmes in other OECD countries

All temporary programmes face the same

challenges:
• How can supply be adapted to fluctuating
demand?
• How can rights be protected and abuse
prevented and redressed?
– In the origin country (fair recruitment)
– In the country of employment
• How can overstay be prevented?
 Admission: the EPS quota approach is
more detailed than most countries
• Many countries have quota-setting mechanisms,
but they are more blunt (i.e., sector allocations are
not common, firm-level quotas are rare)
• EPS takes into account vacancy indicators and
departing workers, among other factors (includes
variable quota)
• Some quotas are fixed in legislation (e.g., USA H-
2B), others on annual basis through a political
process (e.g., Italy) or through vacancy indicators
and stakeholder consultation (e.g., UK).
 Management: EPS uses an employment
permit rather than a work permit

Employment
Work Permit
Permit
Worker receives a work
Employer receives
permit (on the basis of a
authorisation to hire
qualifying job offer)

Foreign worker is
Worker may change to
admitted for employment
any (qualifying)
by an employer holding a
employment
permit

Trend towards authorising employers (fast

track, sponsors, trusted sponsors, etc.)
 Foreign workers have become a high
share of manufacturing employment
Share of foreign in total employment in manufacturing, 2005 and 2015 or latest year

2005 2015
25% 60%

50%
20%

40%
15%
30%
10%
20%
5%
10%

0% 0%

Source: Europe: LFS or GSOEP (Germany); United States: CPS. For Japan, MHLW survey of employers, October 2016, and 2016 LFS. Korea, FLFS and EAPS, May 2016.
 EPS imposes a range of restrictions on
low skilled migration, as elsewhere

Barriers to Barriers to Barriers to

recruitment employment retention

• All of the restrictions • Restrictions and • Limits and

on initial hiring – costs for sunsets
whether they regard
employment
the employer or the
worker, including the
process itself
 Duration: EPS has a long temporary
stay
• Most seasonal agricultural programmes
Employment Permit

Temporary short-term • Temporary seasonal work (non-agricultural)

stay (<12 months) • Polish temporary work scheme

• Sector programme in Israel

Temporary long-term
• H-2B programme in USA
stay (no transition)
• Trainee programme (Japan)
(>12 months)
• EPS (Korea)
• Canada (old programme had 4 year limit)

Temporary long-term • European countries with no skill threshold subject

stay (transition to to labour market test and caps where applied (Italy
Work Permit

permanent) Spain, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Poland, etc.).

• Sweden
• Chile

Permanent stay • EB-3 low-skilled (USA) – capped

• Canada (old live-in care worker programme)
 EPS relies more on bilateral agreements than
most programmes in OECD countries
Korea: 15 countries for the EPS

Bilateral agreements vs. Open

State vs. employers
recruitment
Germany: small programmes,
sector-focused, obsolete • Limited state intermediation in
Israel: large programmes selection, placement, training, etc.
Japan: focused on specific sectors • In rare cases, responsibility of
Agricultural programmes are employers:
more likely to have bilateral • Housing
agreements (Canada, Australia, • Travel cost
New Zealand) but these might not • Legal responsibility and
cover all or even most workers compliance
• Return costs

Most countries don’t require or

favour use of bilateral agreements
 Seasonal worker inflow, 2007-2015
500
United Kingdom
Germany
400
Belgium
Spain
300 Italy
Sweden
200 France
Austria
Finland
100
Poland

0
Norway
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Australia
200 New Zealand
Mexico
100 Canada
0 United States (H-2A)

International Migration Outlook 2017 - © OECD 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2017-en

 Most seasonal workers are not hired
through bilateral agreements
Bilateral Agreements Direct hires
Recognised Seasonal H-2A in the USA (132,000
Employers in New Zealand admissions in FY2016)
(9000 visas in 2015)

Seasonal Agricultural Worker

Program (SAWP) in Canada (3300 28,000 direct hires in Canada
workers in 2015)

Pacific Seasonal Worker Italy, France

Pilot in Australia
transformed into SWP
(2800 visas in FY2014- Short-season berry picking in
2015) Norway, Sweden and Finland
Spain
 EPS has a high level of supervision and
government involvement
EPS is actively managed, throughout the process

Programme administration (logistics) – constant case work

Pre- During At
arrival stay Departure
• Information • Labour • Bonds (set-asides)
campaigns inspectorate, as reward or
• Employer reward
• Immigration forfeiture
and punishment
(PBS, recruitment
inspectorate • Multiple entry
allocations, cost- • Tax compliance visas for “circular
sharing) (at renewals) migration”
• Licensing of Mandatory (priority return)
recruitment agency banking • Transferable
• Training and (forfeitable) right
support of nomination
 EPS uses a “pool” model used in other
countries only for selection of higher skilled
Pools improve fair recruitment but may impose other costs, and require
integrity in the process

Migration
Pool of pre- Selection 2 application
Selection 1 selected Qualifying (to be
Job offer is
Qualifying candidates to be criteria to be lodged
criteria to enter selected for made within a
examined by
the pool hiring time limit)
relevant actors

Requirements:
- Language
- Skills
- Experience
 Mobility: EPS has some job mobility
provisions

• Most OECD countries do not require the

consent of the employer for voluntary
employment changes
• New employers of temporary workers
must satisfy conditions for recruitment
• In most European countries, the work
permit allows mobility
 Return and development: EPS has
good practices favouring development

Support for workers throughout the

migration cycle is one distinguishing aspect:
• Training and support for return during
stays
• Post-return contact with workers to
improve likelihood of return
• Co-operation with training institutes in
origin countries
 15/11

Thank you for your attention

www.oecd.org/migration