Page 449 - Invited Paper Session (IPS) - Volume 2

IPS320 Tine Cordes et al.
particularly weak position. On the contrary, some of the limitations may indeed
increase business opportunities:
- Limiting oneself to an agreement with one single client on a fixed deal
may provide a more stable and sometimes higher income. This is
probably true for some groups. If there are many potential clients and
the market situation is favorable, having only one client at the time
may not be particularly limiting.
- Adhering to a common price concept, branding agreements or similar
may be attractive. This could include marketing advantages, so that the
potential number of clients and even prices could be higher.

- As the two definitions do not seem to capture the target group –
neither independently nor in combination, and as ICSE-18 contains a
broader definition than the two tested, we extend the number of
indicators as mentioned under methodology.

3.2. Revisiting the test
Table 1 shows the different number of self-employed persons in the test
group, who have answered yes to the specific dependent contractor indicators,
and cross-tabulated with likeliness or not to be a dependent contractor via a
manual examination of the respondents in the whole test group.
In the manual division of the self-employed in the test group, 35,600 are
deemed potential dependent contractors, while 88,200 are deemed unlikely
to be dependent contractors. Of the 35,600, 10,900, or almost a third, are in
NACE section M Professional, scientific and technical activities, while 5,300 are
in section J Information and communication. Cross-tabulating this with the
indicators, also in table 1, we see that 59 percent of workers having been
encouraged to become self-employed by former employer was deemed
potential dependent contractors according to manual check. This might be an
indication of economic or operational dependency of a client, presuming the
former employer could still be a client.
Other dependency indicators with relatively high shares of manually
identified potential dependent contractors are: Single dominant client and
Clients determine working time that in combination constituted the main
client approach in the 2017 test carried out for ILO. Relatively high shares
having these indicators are in this further test manually categorized as likely
to be dependent contractors, and this give strength to the conclusion from
3.1. regarding that these conditions might be indicators of dependency.
Furthermore, Employees not possible in field of work and No/little influence
on order of assignments could be indicators of dependency as almost half of
respondents who answered yes to these questions were potential dependent
contractors according to the manual division. Such circumstances indicate

436 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9