Page 450 - Invited Paper Session (IPS) - Volume 2

IPS320 Tine Cordes et al.
reduced influence and freedom compared to what is typical for a classic self-
employed.
The indicators regarding pricing are quite weak, supporting the conclusion
from the 2017 test. Those with the indicator price set by others are even less
likely to be potential dependent contractors than those without this indicator.
However, it is to be noted that some of the numbers are quite small and
conclusions must be taken with care. Importantly, none of the indicators have
an overwhelming share of potential dependent contractors. Thus, no single
indicator is by itself enough to define a dependent contractor.

Table 1. Indicators of being a dependent contractor.
Number with indicator true/false, percentage deemed potential dependent
contractors
Number of persons Percentage potential
dependent contractors
according to manual
division
Indicator Indicator Indicator Indicator
true false true false
Persons Percentage
1 Single dominant client 36 200 87 600 41 24
2 Clients determine working 32 700 91 100 41 24
hours
3 Price set by others 18 900 104 900 17 31
4 Former employer 8 000 115 800 59 27
encouraged self-
employment
5 Not enough influence on 25 400 98 400 30 28
pricing
6 Employees not possible in 12 000 111 800 46 27
field of work
7 Clients want work carried 52 000 71 800 33 25
out personally
8 No/little influence on 4 400 119 400 . 30
content of assignments
9 No/little influence on order 6 500 117 300 44 28
of assignments

Table 2 regards indicators that the worker is not a dependent contractor
(and therefore an own-account worker). It shows that especially plans of hiring
employees or subcontractors are often ruling out the possibility of being a
dependent contractor. None of the other indicators seem to work in particular
against being a dependent contractor.

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