New OECD research across 15 OECD countries surveying 30,000 workers and 6,000 companies reveals non-compete clauses now bind 20–33% of private-sector employees — ranging from 11% in Poland to 41% in Sweden. Originally designed to protect trade secrets when executives depart, these clauses now cover workers with lower-secondary education, the bottom earnings decile, and fixed-term contractors, many of whom report zero access to confidential information. Nearly half receive no compensation for the restriction, and clauses frequently exceed legal limits in duration, geographic scope, and business coverage.

The economic drag is measurable: a 10 percentage-point increase in non-compete prevalence correlates with a 1.9% productivity decline at the industry level. Five percent of workers say a clause blocked a job change; three percent abandoned startup plans. The chilling effect operates through perception — most clauses go unchallenged in court but still deter mobility.

Policy responses diverge. Several US states enforce outright bans, though a federal FTC ban was vacated by courts. Most OECD nations prefer calibrated rules: earnings thresholds, mandatory compensation, duration caps, and advance disclosure requirements. The OECD argues enforcement and transparency matter as much as statute — clear public guidance, plain-language contracts, and credible sanctions for overbroad clauses could restore labor-market dynamism without sacrificing legitimate IP protection.