+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Composite coding scheme: employment status

Composite coding scheme: employment status

Date post: 19-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: oliana
View: 36 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
IPUMS-International partners by stage final stage (data in development/dissemination) = darkest middle stage (signed agreement) = medium green first stage (verbal agreement, signing pending) = lightest. Composite coding scheme: employment status. integrated codes. Codes in original data. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Popular Tags:
20
www.ipums.org/internation al 1 IPUMS-International partners IPUMS-International partners by stage by stage final stage (data in development/dissemination) = darkest final stage (data in development/dissemination) = darkest middle stage (signed agreement) = medium green middle stage (signed agreement) = medium green first stage (verbal agreement, signing pending) = lightest first stage (verbal agreement, signing pending) = lightest
Transcript
Page 1: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 1

IPUMS-International partners IPUMS-International partners by stageby stage

final stage (data in development/dissemination) = final stage (data in development/dissemination) = darkestdarkest

middle stage (signed agreement) = medium greenmiddle stage (signed agreement) = medium greenfirst stage (verbal agreement, signing pending) = first stage (verbal agreement, signing pending) =

lightestlightest

Page 2: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 2

Composite coding scheme: employment statusComposite coding scheme: employment status

IPUMSI IPUMSI Col Col Fra Fra Ken Mex Mex US Viet Viet

Code Label 1964 1993 1962 1975 1999 1970 2000 1960 1989 1999

 0000 N/A *,5 B * B BB 0 BB 00 B B,1

   ACTIVE (In Labor Force)                    

 1000 EMPLOYED, not specified 1               1

 1100 At work   4 1 1 01 1 10 10    

 1101         At work, and 'student'             14      

 1102         At work, and 'housework'             15      

 1103         At work, and 'seeking work'             13      

 1104           At work, and 'retired'             16      

 1105           At work, and 'no work'             18      

 1108           At work, family holding, not agricultural         03          

 1109           At work, familiy holding, agricultural         04          

 1200     Have job, not at work last week   3     02   20 12    

 1300     Armed forces               13    

 1303           Military trainee (France)     8 6            

 2000 UNEMPLOYED, not specified 2     3 05 2 30 20    

 2001             Unemployed (Vietnam)                 4 5

 2002             Worked less than 6 months, permanent job                 2

 2003             Worked less than 6 months, temporary job                 6  

 2100         Unemployed, experience worker   1           21    

 2200         Unemployed, new worker   2 7         22    

 3000 INACTIVE (Not in Labor Force)               30    

 3100     Housework 3 6     10 3 50 31 6 2

 3200     Unable to work/disabled 7 7     09   70 32 7 4

 3300     In school 4 5 9 5 07   40 33 5 3

 3400     Retirees and living on rent 8           60      

 3402         Retirees/pensioners   8   4 08          

 3500 Elderly 6                  

 3600     No work available/discouraged         06          

 3700     Inactive, other reasons 9 0 0 0 11 4 80 34   6

 9000 UNKNOWN/MISSING 9 00 9 99 9

Table 6. Translation Table for Employment StatusHarmonized Codes and Labels Source Data Codes (selected samples)

Codes in original Codes in original datadata

integrated codesintegrated codes

Page 3: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 3

Calibrating census microdata Calibrating census microdata against a gold standard against a gold standard

(employment survey): women (employment survey): women in the workforce, in the workforce,

Mexico 1990 and 2000Mexico 1990 and 2000* * ** * *

Robert McCaa, Albert Esteve, Rodolfo Robert McCaa, Albert Esteve, Rodolfo Gutierrez and Gabriela Vasquez, Gutierrez and Gabriela Vasquez,

Minnesota Population Center Minnesota Population Center paper at: paper at:

www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxflfp.docwww.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxflfp.docCalibrate, v. 1864. a. Calibrate, v. 1864. a. trans.trans.

...to graduate a gauge of any kind ...to graduate a gauge of any kind with allowance for its irregularities.with allowance for its irregularities.

The Oxford English Dictionary OnlineThe Oxford English Dictionary Online (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001)(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001)

Page 4: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 4

Today’s PresentationToday’s Presentation

» The paper: Calibrating census microdata The paper: Calibrating census microdata

a. a. Census vs. employment surveysCensus vs. employment surveys

b. Female labor force participationb. Female labor force participation

c. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey): c. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey):

1990 & 20001990 & 2000

d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000

e. Conclusion: Mexican census microdata e. Conclusion: Mexican census microdata

on FLFP are better than commonly thought on FLFP are better than commonly thought

Page 5: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 5

Calibration testCalibration testMexico 1990, 2000: FLFPMexico 1990, 2000: FLFP

census microdata census microdata vs. employment surveys vs. employment surveys

Employment surveys: Employment surveys: date from the late 1980s; many probing questions date from the late 1980s; many probing questions finely tuned instrument administered by trained finely tuned instrument administered by trained interviewersinterviewersUrban (ENEU)—quarterly from 1987, 16 cities in 1990, Urban (ENEU)—quarterly from 1987, 16 cities in 1990,

rising to 47 in 2000--lacks national coverage; rising to 47 in 2000--lacks national coverage; National (ENE)—from 1988; annual since 1995National (ENE)—from 1988; annual since 1995

Census microdata: Census microdata: strength: national coverage back to 1960 strength: national coverage back to 1960 weakness: untrained interviewers, one question on weakness: untrained interviewers, one question on LFPLFP omits many working women, particularly informal omits many working women, particularly informal workersworkers

Purpose of paper: calibrate census microdata Purpose of paper: calibrate census microdata w/ employment surveysw/ employment surveys

Page 6: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 6

IPUMS-InternationalIPUMS-InternationalEmployment Status variableEmployment Status variable

comparability discussion:comparability discussion:Mexico 1990, 2000Mexico 1990, 2000

““In 1990, the employment status question refers to In 1990, the employment status question refers to ‘‘Principal ActivityPrincipal Activity’ and therefore under-reports ’ and therefore under-reports secondary economic activity by students, housewives, secondary economic activity by students, housewives, family-workers, the semi-retired, and others. family-workers, the semi-retired, and others.

“The 2000 Census sought to overcome deficiencies in “The 2000 Census sought to overcome deficiencies in reporting work status for people whose primary activity reporting work status for people whose primary activity was not work (students, housewives, retirees, etc.), but was not work (students, housewives, retirees, etc.), but who in fact were working according to international who in fact were working according to international definitions. A second question, introduced for the first definitions. A second question, introduced for the first time in 2000, sought to capture this secondary economic time in 2000, sought to capture this secondary economic activity. For strict comparability with earlier Mexican activity. For strict comparability with earlier Mexican censuses, this recovered activity (codes 1101-1106) censuses, this recovered activity (codes 1101-1106) should be considered ‘inactive’."should be considered ‘inactive’."

Page 7: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 7

2000 census--two questions on 2000 census--two questions on LFP: LFP:

1: “Last week did (NAME)...” 1: “Last week did (NAME)...” ...”Question 1:Question 1:

Last week (Name):Last week (Name):

Did you work? Did you work? 27.5%27.5%

Had work? Had work? 0.40.4

Look for work? Look for work? 0.30.3

Are you a Are you a student?student?

housewife?housewife?

retired?retired?

permanently permanently incapacitated?incapacitated?

Did you not work?Did you not work?

2000 census--two questions on 2000 census--two questions on LFP: LFP:

1: “Last week, did (NAME)...?” 1: “Last week, did (NAME)...?” 2: “Besides (...), did (NAME)...?”2: “Besides (...), did (NAME)...?”Question 1:Question 1:

Last week (Name):Last week (Name):

Did you work? Did you work? 27.5%27.5%

Had work? Had work? 0.40.4

Looked? Looked? 0.30.3Q. 1&2: combined Q. 1&2: combined student/wrkd student/wrkd 0.50.5 housewife/wr housewife/wr 3.73.7 retired/wrkd retired/wrkd 0.00.0 other/wrkd other/wrkd 0.40.4 no reply/wrkd no reply/wrkd 0.00.0

Question 2:Question 2:

Did you help in a Did you help in a family family business?business?

Sell some Sell some product?product?

Make some Make some product to sell?product to sell?

Help on a farm or Help on a farm or with livestock?with livestock?

Or in exchange Or in exchange for pay did you for pay did you do some other do some other activity?activity?

Page 8: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 8

Table 1. Selected microdata Table 1. Selected microdata samples of Mexico, 1960 - 2000 samples of Mexico, 1960 - 2000

YearYear Type Type Sample Size % pop.Sample Size % pop.

19601960** Census Census 502,702502,7021.51.5

19701970** Census Census 480,265480,2651.01.0

19801980 Census Census No sample available due to earthquake No sample available due to earthquake

damagedamage

19901990** Census Census 802,774802,7741.01.0

1990, ENEU (urban survey)1990, ENEU (urban survey) 172,233172,2330.20.2

20002000** Census Census 10,099,182 10,099,182 10.010.0

20002000 ENEU (urban survey) ENEU (urban survey) 562,471562,4710.60.620012001 ENE (national survey) 588,912 ENE (national survey) 588,912 0.60.6

((**integrated in IPUMS-International)integrated in IPUMS-International)

Coming soon!!!

Coming soon!!!

New 10% samples

New 10% samples

for 1970, 1

990 &

for 1970, 1

990 &

20002000

Page 9: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 9

The problem (table 2)The problem (table 2)Mexico’s “global” female labor force Mexico’s “global” female labor force

participation rate (12-64 years)participation rate (12-64 years)

microdatamicrodata 1990199020002000

survey (ENEU):survey (ENEU): 34.8% 34.8% 43.3%43.3%

national census:national census: 20.6% 20.6% 32.9%32.9%

14.214.2 10.410.4A solutionA solutionControl for survey (ENEU) sampling Control for survey (ENEU) sampling

frame: frame: 16 cities in 199016 cities in 1990

survey (16 cities): 34.8%survey (16 cities): 34.8% 41.7%41.7%

census (16 cities):census (16 cities): 29.0% 29.0% 40.2%*40.2%*

5.85.8 1.5 1.5* includes responses to LFP questions 1 (“activity”) & 2 * includes responses to LFP questions 1 (“activity”) & 2 (“verification”).(“verification”).

Page 10: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 10

StructureStructure FLFP RatesFLFP Rates

SurveySurvey CensusCensus SrvySrvy CnssCnss

TotalTotal 62,248 62,248 63,92963,929 34.834.8 29.029.0

EducationEducation

Less than 6 yearsLess than 6 years 20.920.9 21.7 21.7 29.329.3

20.120.1

Completed primaryCompleted primary 34.734.7 34.8 34.8 27.627.6 21.121.1

Completed middleCompleted middle 20.420.4 24.3 24.3 31.331.3

37.937.9

Post-middle (10+)Post-middle (10+) 23.923.9 19.3 19.3 53.153.1

42.242.2

Marital StatusMarital Status

Married (all types)Married (all types) 48.248.2 50.4 50.4 27.727.7 21.321.3

Not in unionNot in union 51.851.8 49.6 49.6 41.441.4

36.936.9

Table 3. Urban Females, 1990Table 3. Urban Females, 1990(aged 12-64)(aged 12-64)

Page 11: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 11

StructureStructure FLFP RatesFLFP Rates

SurveySurvey CensusCensus SrvySrvy CnssCnss

TotalTotal 124,051 1,073,222 124,051 1,073,222 41.741.7 40.240.2

EducationEducation

Less than 6 yearsLess than 6 years 14.914.9 15.9 15.9 35.335.3

31.031.0

Completed primaryCompleted primary 30.830.8 28.7 28.7 32.132.1 30.130.1

Completed middleCompleted middle 28.528.5 19.7 19.7 47.047.0

41.041.0

Post-middle (10+)Post-middle (10+) 25.825.8 36.0 36.0 51.151.1

51.951.9

Marital StatusMarital Status

Married (all forms)Married (all forms) 51.951.9 52.9 52.9 35.135.1 34.034.0

Not in unionNot in union 48.148.1 47.1 47.1 48.948.9

47.347.3

Table 5. Females 2000: Urban Table 5. Females 2000: Urban (limited to same 16 cities as 1990) (limited to same 16 cities as 1990)

Page 12: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 12

Female labor force participationFemale labor force participationENEU (indicator) vs. CensusENEU (indicator) vs. Census

Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B)

1990: -.2212 .0135 267.2291 1 .0000 -.0412 .8015

2000: .0860 .0067 163.1781 1 .0000 .0100 1.0898Model source effect taking into account age, marital status and education.Model source effect taking into account age, marital status and education.

Table 5. Logistic Regression: Table 5. Logistic Regression: Source Source (Females 1990, 2000; same 16 cities as (Females 1990, 2000; same 16 cities as

in ENEU 1990)in ENEU 1990)

InterpretationInterpretationIf for both sources weights are considered If for both sources weights are considered correct and slight structural differences are correct and slight structural differences are taken into account:taken into account:

1990 census under-reported 20% of FLFP.1990 census under-reported 20% of FLFP.

2000 census “over-reports” FLFP by 9%.2000 census “over-reports” FLFP by 9%.

Page 13: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 13

Today’s PresentationToday’s Presentation

» 1. The project: IPUMS-International1. The project: IPUMS-International

a.a. Preserving the world’s census microdataPreserving the world’s census microdata

b. And making them usableb. And making them usable

» 2. The paper: Calibrating census microdata 2. The paper: Calibrating census microdata

a. a. Census vs. employment surveysCensus vs. employment surveys

b. Female labor force participationb. Female labor force participation

c. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey): 1990 & c. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey): 1990 &

20002000

d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000

e. Conclusione. Conclusion

Page 14: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 14

StructureStructure FLFP RatesFLFP Rates

SurveySurvey CensusCensus SrvySrvy CnssCnss

TotalTotal 212,890 3,431,891 212,890 3,431,891 39.839.8 32.932.9

EducationEducation

Less than 6 yearsLess than 6 years 22.022.0 27.6 27.6 30.930.9

23.323.3

Completed primaryCompleted primary 38.038.0 30.0 30.0 36.436.4 25.025.0

Completed middleCompleted middle 16.516.5 16.8 16.8 41.241.2

36.836.8

Post-middle (10+)Post-middle (10+) 23.523.5 25.6 25.6 52.452.4

49.949.9

Marital StatusMarital Status

Married (all forms)Married (all forms) 54.754.7 54.8 54.8 36.336.3 27.627.6

Not in unionNot in union 45.345.3 45.2 45.2 43.943.9

39.339.3

Table 6a. Females 2000: National Table 6a. Females 2000: National

Page 15: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 15

StructureStructure FLFP RatesFLFP Rates

SurveySurvey CensusCensus SrvySrvy CnssCnss

TotalTotal 39.839.8 35.735.7

EducationEducation

Less than 6 yearsLess than 6 years 22.022.0 22.3 22.3 30.930.9

25.425.4

Completed primaryCompleted primary 38.038.0 29.6 29.6 36.436.4 26.726.7

Completed middleCompleted middle 16.516.5 30.8 30.8 41.241.2

40.540.5

Post-middle (10+)Post-middle (10+) 23.523.5 27.3 27.3 52.452.4

55.555.5

Marital StatusMarital Status

Married (all forms)Married (all forms) 54.754.7 54.3 54.3 36.336.3 30.130.1

Not in unionNot in union 45.345.3 45.7 45.7 43.943.9

42.242.2

Table 6b. Females 2000: National Table 6b. Females 2000: National

Limited to municipios in ENELimited to municipios in ENE

Page 16: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 16

PostscriptPostscript

* * * * * * ** * * * * * *

Page 17: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 17

Fig 1. LFP by sex and marital Fig 1. LFP by sex and marital statusstatus

Mexico 1990 and 2000 (national figures)Mexico 1990 and 2000 (national figures)The iron grip of m arriage on working for pay is w eakeningMarriage dam pens partic ipation for fem ales in c ontras t to m ales

F ig . 1 . D e ta ile d lab o r fo rc e ra te s s ta tus : M e x ic o , 1 9 9 0 , 2 0 0 0Married inc ludes religious or consensual as w ell as legal unions

R a t e s o f m a r ried w o m e n w e re les s th a n h a lf th o s e o f s in g le , w id ow e d , s e p a ra t e d o r d iv o rc e d

pe

rce

nt

F em ales : 1990age

12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sing le

M ar r ied

W idSe pD v

T h e g ap b e twe e n m a rr ie d w o m en a n d o th e rs s h ra n k , bu t t h e d if fe re n c e re m a in s s u b s ta n t ia l

F em ales : 2000age

12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sing le

M ar r ied

W idSe pD v

R a te s o f m a rr ie d m a le s a re m a rk e d ly h ig he r t h a n f o r o t h e rs

pe

rce

nt

M ales : 1990age

12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sing le

M ar r iedW idSe pD v

T h e g a p n a r ro w e d s l ig h t ly ,p a r t ic u la rly f o r t h e w id o w e d , s e p a ra te d a nd d iv o rc e d

Males : 2000age

12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sing le

M ar r iedW idSe pD v

FemaleFemaless

MalesMales19901990 20002000

Page 18: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 18

Bigges t change is for w om en w ith les s than 7 years of s choolingLittle = < 6 years ; P rim ary = 6-8; Middle = 9; Higher = 9+ years

Fig. 2. Schooling and Marriage strongly influence female work ratesMarried inc ludes all form s of unions

F ew wit h les s t han 7 y ea rs o f s c hooling wo rk ed fo r pay

pe

rce

nt

1990: Not C urrently Marr iedage

12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

litt le

prim ary

m idd le

h igher

G rea t es t inc reas es a re fo r t hos e wit h les s than 7 y ea rs o f s c hoo ling

2000: Not C urrently Marr iedage

12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

litt le

prim arym idd le

h igher

pe

rce

nt

1990: Marr iedage

12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

litt leprim ary

m idd le

h igher

2000: Marr iedage

12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

0

20

40

60

80

100

litt leprim arym idd le

h igher

Marriage and education strongly Marriage and education strongly affect FLFP affect FLFP (Mexico 1990 and 2000, national (Mexico 1990 and 2000, national

figures)figures)

19901990 20002000MarriedMarried

NotNot

Page 19: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 19

ReflectionsReflections

Mexican census microdata may be more Mexican census microdata may be more informative, informative, than commonly thought—even about FLFP than commonly thought—even about FLFP

Mexican census microdata on FLFP display Mexican census microdata on FLFP display remarkableremarkable coherence in time and space coherence in time and space

““Chorus of calamity” on Mexican FLFP may Chorus of calamity” on Mexican FLFP may overlook overlook

enormous changes in educationenormous changes in education

weakening power of patriarchy over married womenweakening power of patriarchy over married women

real advances of women in the workforce real advances of women in the workforce

2000 microdata tell the story2000 microdata tell the story

Calibrate me!Calibrate me! weigh strengths and weigh strengths and weaknesses ofweaknesses of sources. sources.

Page 20: Composite coding scheme: employment status

www.ipums.org/international 20

Thank youThank you

* * * * * * ** * * * * * *

[email protected]@umn.edu


Recommended