Another approach views full employment as an unemployment rate--the minimum believed to be attainable. But what rate? Controversies often reveal as much about goals and degree of commitment to full employment as about the lowest achievable rate. What is called "full" employment may simply be a politically tolerable rate of unemployment. Perversely, as the main target of national policies has shifted from people to prices, economists have used the term to indicate the minimum rate they regard, rightly or wrongly, as consistent with stable prices. This is called the "natural rate of unemployment" or "non-accelerating inflation rate of unem­ ployment" (NAIRU)--a jobless rate below which they believe inflation accelerates. Though advocating policies to keep unemployment from dropping below that level, they use "full employment", "natural rate of unemployment" and "NAIRU" interchangeably. Two past presidents of the American Economic Association (AEA) have criticized this concept. Robert Eisner (1995) calls the NAIRU one of the most powerful influences on economic policy of this century, but his research finds no empirical evidence for its existence. In his presidential address to the AEA, the late William Vickrey (1993), 1996 Nobel Laureate, tagged the "natural rate of unemployment ...the most vicious euphemism ever coined".

Yet, defining full employment as an unemployment rate inevitably raises the issue, "whose full employment?" The official rate masks extensive hidden unemployment, particularly involuntary part-time work and discouragement, which, like official unemployment, are disproportionately concentrated among disadvantaged groups (Collins et al., 1994: Ch. 1; Sorrentino, 1995). Takahashi shows that Japan's hidden unemployment is more prevalent among women. Correcting for omissions (Bregger and Haugen, 1995) can alleviate this problem but still conceals substantial group and regional differences. Nor do such measures tell us about wages. Defining full employment as envisioned by Beveridge and others links the rights to employment and decent wages. However, Beveridge's concept was based mainly on the male worker, and has since been updated (Collins et al., 1994).

A humanistic concept means that pay is adequate, the workplace is democratic and disadvantaged groups have equal opportunities. It also assumes a peacetime economy and one that respects the environment. It must include all who want part- or full-time work, whether officially unemployed or outside the labor force. Such a concept--because it includes many women who would otherwise provide full-time care to their families--implies compatibility between family and workplace. It calls for services, such as child­care, flexible hours, job redesign and accessible transportation for the disabled--all of which enable people to make meaningful choices about work.