IPUMS-International partners
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 20

Composite coding scheme: employment status PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 54 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

Download Presentation

Composite coding scheme: employment status

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Composite coding scheme employment status

IPUMS-International partners by stagefinal stage (data in development/dissemination) = darkestmiddle stage (signed agreement) = medium greenfirst stage (verbal agreement, signing pending) = lightest

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

Composite coding scheme: employment status

integrated codes

Codes in original data

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

Calibrating census microdata against a gold standard (employment survey): women in the workforce, Mexico 1990 and 2000* * *Robert McCaa, Albert Esteve, Rodolfo Gutierrez and Gabriela Vasquez, Minnesota Population Center paper at: www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxflfp.doc

Calibrate, v. 1864. a. trans....to graduate a gauge of any kind with allowance for its irregularities.The Oxford English Dictionary Online(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001)

www.ipums.org/international


Today s presentation

Today’s Presentation

  • The paper: Calibrating census microdata a. Census vs. employment surveysb. Female labor force participationc. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey): 1990 & 2000d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000e. Conclusion: Mexican census microdata on FLFP are better than commonly thought

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

Calibration testMexico 1990, 2000: FLFP census microdata vs. employment surveys

Employment surveys:

date from the late 1980s; many probing questions

finely tuned instrument administered by trained interviewers

Urban (ENEU)—quarterly from 1987, 16 cities in 1990, rising to 47 in 2000--lacks national coverage;

National (ENE)—from 1988; annual since 1995

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

Purpose of paper: calibrate census microdata w/ employment surveys

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

IPUMS-InternationalEmployment Status variablecomparability discussion:Mexico 1990, 2000

“In 1990, the employment status question refers to ‘Principal Activity’ and therefore under-reports secondary economic activity by students, housewives, family-workers, the semi-retired, and others. “The 2000 Census sought to overcome deficiencies in reporting work status for people whose primary activity was not work (students, housewives, retirees, etc.), but who in fact were working according to international definitions. A second question, introduced for the first time in 2000, sought to capture this secondary economic activity. For strict comparability with earlier Mexican censuses, this recovered activity (codes 1101-1106) should be considered ‘inactive’."

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

2000 census--two questions on LFP: 1: “Last week did (NAME)...” ...”

2000 census--two questions on LFP: 1: “Last week, did (NAME)...?” 2: “Besides (...), did (NAME)...?”

Question 1:

Last week (Name):

Did you work? 27.5%

Had work? 0.4

Look for work? 0.3

Are you a student?

housewife?

retired?

permanently incapacitated?

Did you not work?

Question 1:

Last week (Name):

Did you work? 27.5%

Had work? 0.4

Looked? 0.3

Q. 1&2: combined

student/wrkd 0.5

housewife/wr 3.7

retired/wrkd 0.0

other/wrkd 0.4

no reply/wrkd 0.0

Question 2:

Did you help in a family business?

Sell some product?

Make some product to sell?

Help on a farm or with livestock?

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

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

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

Year Type Sample Size % pop.

1960* Census502,7021.5

1970* Census480,2651.0

1980 CensusNo sample available due to earthquake damage

1990* Census802,7741.0

1990, ENEU (urban survey)172,2330.2

2000* Census 10,099,182 10.0

2000 ENEU (urban survey)562,4710.62001 ENE (national survey) 588,912 0.6

(*integrated in IPUMS-International)

Coming soon!!!New 10% samples for 1970, 1990 & 2000

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

The problem (table 2)

Mexico’s “global” female labor force participation rate (12-64 years)

microdata19902000

survey (ENEU): 34.8%43.3%

national census: 20.6% 32.9%

 14.210.4

A solutionControl for survey (ENEU) sampling frame: 16 cities in 1990

survey (16 cities): 34.8%41.7%

census (16 cities): 29.0% 40.2%*

 5.8 1.5

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

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

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

StructureFLFP Rates

SurveyCensusSrvyCnss

Total 62,24863,92934.829.0

Education

Less than 6 years20.9 21.729.320.1

Completed primary34.7 34.827.621.1

Completed middle20.4 24.331.337.9

Post-middle (10+)23.9 19.353.142.2

Marital Status

Married (all types)48.2 50.427.721.3

Not in union51.8 49.641.436.9

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

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

StructureFLFP Rates

SurveyCensusSrvyCnss

Total 124,051 1,073,22241.740.2

Education

Less than 6 years14.9 15.935.331.0

Completed primary30.8 28.732.130.1

Completed middle28.5 19.747.041.0

Post-middle (10+)25.8 36.051.151.9

Marital Status

Married (all forms)51.9 52.935.134.0

Not in union48.1 47.148.947.3

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

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

Female labor force participationENEU (indicator) vs. CensusVariable 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 1.0898

Model source effect taking into account age, marital status and education.

Interpretation

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

1990 census under-reported 20% of FLFP.

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

www.ipums.org/international


Today s presentation1

Today’s Presentation

  • 1. The project: IPUMS-International

    a.Preserving the world’s census microdatab. And making them usable

  • 2. The paper: Calibrating census microdata a. Census vs. employment surveysb. Female labor force participationc. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey): 1990 & 2000d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000e. Conclusion

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

Table 6a. Females 2000: National

StructureFLFP Rates

SurveyCensusSrvyCnss

Total 212,890 3,431,89139.832.9

Education

Less than 6 years22.0 27.630.923.3

Completed primary38.0 30.036.425.0

Completed middle16.5 16.841.236.8

Post-middle (10+)23.5 25.652.449.9

Marital Status

Married (all forms)54.7 54.836.327.6

Not in union45.3 45.243.939.3

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

Table 6b. Females 2000: National Limited to municipios in ENE

StructureFLFP Rates

SurveyCensusSrvyCnss

Total 39.835.7

Education

Less than 6 years22.0 22.330.925.4

Completed primary38.0 29.636.426.7

Completed middle16.5 30.841.240.5

Post-middle (10+)23.5 27.352.455.5

Marital Status

Married (all forms)54.7 54.336.330.1

Not in union45.3 45.743.942.2

www.ipums.org/international


Postscript

Postscript* * * * * * *

www.ipums.org/international


Fig 1 lfp by sex and marital status mexico 1990 and 2000 national figures

Fig 1. LFP by sex and marital statusMexico 1990 and 2000 (national figures)

Females

1990

Males

2000

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

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

Not

Married

1990

2000

www.ipums.org/international


Composite coding scheme employment status

Reflections

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

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

“Chorus of calamity” on Mexican FLFP may overlook

enormous changes in education

weakening power of patriarchy over married women

real advances of women in the workforce

2000 microdata tell the story

Calibrate me! weigh strengths and weaknesses of sources.

www.ipums.org/international


Thank you rmccaa@umn edu

Thank you* * * * * * [email protected]

www.ipums.org/international


  • Login