IPUMS-International partners
Download
1 / 20

Composite coding scheme: employment status - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 88 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Composite coding scheme: employment status' - oliana


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

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


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 (employment survey): women in the workforce,

  • 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


Calibration test (employment survey): women in the workforce, Mexico 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


IPUMS-International (employment survey): women in the workforce, Employment 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


2000 census--two questions on LFP: (employment survey): women in the workforce, 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


Table 1. Selected microdata samples of Mexico, 1960 - 2000 (employment survey): women in the workforce,

Year Type Sample Size % pop.

1960* Census 502,702 1.5

1970* Census 480,265 1.0

1980 Census No sample available due to earthquake damage

1990* Census 802,774 1.0

1990, ENEU (urban survey) 172,233 0.2

2000* Census 10,099,182 10.0

2000 ENEU (urban survey) 562,471 0.62001 ENE (national survey) 588,912 0.6

(*integrated in IPUMS-International)

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

www.ipums.org/international


The problem (table 2) (employment survey): women in the workforce,

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

microdata19902000

survey (ENEU): 34.8% 43.3%

national census: 20.6% 32.9%

 14.2 10.4

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


Table 3. Urban Females, 1990 (employment survey): women in the workforce, (aged 12-64)

StructureFLFP Rates

SurveyCensusSrvyCnss

Total 62,248 63,929 34.8 29.0

Education

Less than 6 years 20.9 21.7 29.3 20.1

Completed primary 34.7 34.8 27.6 21.1

Completed middle 20.4 24.3 31.3 37.9

Post-middle (10+) 23.9 19.3 53.1 42.2

Marital Status

Married (all types) 48.2 50.4 27.7 21.3

Not in union 51.8 49.6 41.4 36.9

www.ipums.org/international


Table 5. Females 2000: Urban (employment survey): women in the workforce, (limited to same 16 cities as 1990)

StructureFLFP Rates

SurveyCensusSrvyCnss

Total 124,051 1,073,222 41.7 40.2

Education

Less than 6 years 14.9 15.9 35.3 31.0

Completed primary 30.8 28.7 32.1 30.1

Completed middle 28.5 19.7 47.0 41.0

Post-middle (10+) 25.8 36.0 51.1 51.9

Marital Status

Married (all forms) 51.9 52.9 35.1 34.0

Not in union 48.1 47.1 48.9 47.3

www.ipums.org/international


Table 5. Logistic Regression: Source (employment survey): women in the workforce, (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 (employment survey): women in the workforce,

  • 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


Table 6a. Females 2000: National (employment survey): women in the workforce,

StructureFLFP Rates

SurveyCensusSrvyCnss

Total 212,890 3,431,891 39.8 32.9

Education

Less than 6 years 22.0 27.6 30.9 23.3

Completed primary 38.0 30.0 36.4 25.0

Completed middle 16.5 16.8 41.2 36.8

Post-middle (10+) 23.5 25.6 52.4 49.9

Marital Status

Married (all forms) 54.7 54.8 36.3 27.6

Not in union 45.3 45.2 43.9 39.3

www.ipums.org/international


Table 6b. Females 2000: National (employment survey): women in the workforce, Limited to municipios in ENE

StructureFLFP Rates

SurveyCensusSrvyCnss

Total 39.8 35.7

Education

Less than 6 years 22.0 22.3 30.9 25.4

Completed primary 38.0 29.6 36.4 26.7

Completed middle 16.5 30.8 41.2 40.5

Post-middle (10+) 23.5 27.3 52.4 55.5

Marital Status

Married (all forms) 54.7 54.3 36.3 30.1

Not in union 45.3 45.7 43.9 42.2

www.ipums.org/international


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

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 status (employment survey): women in the workforce, Mexico 1990 and 2000 (national figures)

Females

1990

Males

2000

www.ipums.org/international


Marriage and education strongly affect FLFP (employment survey): women in the workforce, (Mexico 1990 and 2000, national figures)

Not

Married

1990

2000

www.ipums.org/international


Reflections (employment survey): women in the workforce,

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 (employment survey): women in the workforce, * * * * * * [email protected]

www.ipums.org/international


ad